EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-02-14 02:48
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-10-18 20:20
  • Number of Posts: 3,509
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Cade Windstalker

Security Status 5.0

Last 20 Posts

  • Ability to capture a citadel. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Scialt wrote:
    Well, first off... it wouldn't be profitable in high or low sec (if they have NPC stations). Since the reward would be from the asset safety fee... and that fee only gets charged if the asset location doesn't have a NPC station in it... it would really only impact null-sec and a few other random systems. Wormholes don't have asset safety so it wouldn't impact them either.

    Everywhere else would essentially work as it does now.


    You're letting someone *steal the Citadel* which can then be unanchored and sold on the market. That's the payout here... also High Sec still has asset safety complete with fees.

    Scialt wrote:
    So... in 27 days we've had 85 citadels lost in all of null sec. That's not a lot when you consider the number out there. I'm not completely familiar with much of null outside of the easily available region of Providence, but of the 4 destroyed in providence, I believe 3 were destroyed prior to being put online. 3 of those were citadels attempting to anchor in providence by "invading" forces.

    I'm not sure how to tell it from the KM's... but killing an onlining citadel is a very different (and much easier) prospect from killing a citadel that has been put online. I don't really think that factors into the discussion to be honest. Everyone wants to smash a citadel before it goes online. People will take the time to smash a citadel that makes it online inside their space. Going through the difficulty of destroying onlined citadels in the space of others... It doesn't FEEL like that happens very often, but I can't find numbers to prove or disprove it.


    The problem of Citadels being a bit too much of a slog to kill is its own problem and completely separate from the idea of capturing Citadels or otherwise rewarding their destruction. One should not be used to solve the other. Rewarding the slog doesn't make the slog go away or make it better, it just incentivizes the bad gameplay more.

    As for the number of Citadels destroyed you should take a look at historical POS losses and compare them to Citadel losses. Purely in Towers lost POSes account for roughly 2-300b a month on average. When you factor in modules that goes up but probably not more than twice. That puts POS tower losses at something in the realm of 600b a month. Citadels and ECs across Eve have averaged something like 1.4t in losses since the new year.

    Scialt wrote:
    The point of giving the capturing or destroying group the ability to take some of the asset safety is to encorage them to invade other regions. Most people believe the lack of wars in null sec are causing universal economic problems in eve. Giving a an added reason to destroy citadels helps with that.


    This really really isn't needed. Players in Eve will always find something to fight over. If nothing is provided they'll find something.

    Providing this sort of easily abused incentive, essentially turning war into a for-direct-profit endeavor, will just hurt smaller entities by turning them into prey to be farmed for ISK and hurting their ability to play the game. At least right now these sorts of groups are just a source of fights and kills rather than having their assets farmed.

    Scialt wrote:
    A quick scan suggest 6 or 7 of the last 10 null sec citadels destroyed were destroyed before going online. If that holds true across the board than you're looking at around 45 null-sec citadels this month where people took time to actually destroy them.

    The main system I hang around at in Providence has something like 10-15 citadels in it. And it's not the most populated system by far. That's like 4 systems worth of citadels a month. There are something like 3,500 null sec systems.


    My response to this is sort of "yes, and?". How many POSes do you think died each month and how many of those were offline? Expecting entire systems worth of Citadels to be wiped out, especially in the absence of a major war, is not reasonable. In fact if that were happening it's likely that the situation would be considered unhealthy.

    Also as I stated previously, the issue of Citadel timers being too aggressively defensive is a separate issue to this, and this is not a way to solve that as it doesn't actually address the issue.

  • Hull repairers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Why? You're not supposed to tank with your hull, and if you make Hull Repairers as effective as Armor ones it actually becomes pretty effective to run an Omni-Tank on your hull.

    Hull Repairers are something to be used to fix your ship after a fight. Not as actual tank.

  • Supercarrier Force Auxilliary Ships (Logistical Supercarriers) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Old Pervert wrote:
    To be fair I did say "if you want". I was offering up a potential mechanism by which subcap logistics would suffer from the same issues as fax do. A shot from the hip with just a little bit of thought on it.

    I agree that a well-rounded fleet should win. In fact, I think that if you were to add either logistics or ewar, then either of those fleets (short of gross incompetence as you've said) should be able to beat a similar or slightly larger force of just dps. Adding both logistics and ewar, they should be able to beat a substantially larger force (or a slightly larger force having only logistics or ewar). In small/medium engagments at least.

    My main is very heavily trained into support skills - all the ewar, logistics, etc. It is my preferred playstyle to fly ewar. Sadly, there is very little call for it in most fights.

    I guess thinking back to my last post about making logistics cap unstable, ewar would be able to lessen incoming damage (or amplify outgoing damage) to in effect stretch out your logistical capabilities. Hmm.


    It's not really the same issue though, because you don't need to shoot someone for them to cap out just from using their modules.

    Having a ship cap out like this, especially in a short span of time, essentially makes it useless. In a small gang situation the fight will last far longer than your cap, so the benefit of bringing Logi at all becomes minimal.

    In a larger fight the fight lasts a long time because you have more ships involved, and because you're basically just waiting for the Logi to cap themselves out quickly they don't scale well, so once again Logi becomes effectively useless compared to simply adding another brick of EHP and guns.

    This could be potentially worked around by effectively completely rebalancing rep amounts and basically everything about remote repair, but at that point you're basically completely ripping up everything about remote repair and starting from scratch, and to do it you're likely going to have to make these modules worthless outside of a dedicated hull.

    Personally I don't think any of these is really desirable.

    As for EWar, it's very powerful as it is. The reason people don't use it is because it's at least somewhat situational, and it's harder to measure the impact of good EWar as opposed to adding more guns or reps, which are easily quantified numerically.

    If you actually dig into the mechanics though EWar can be fantastically useful, especially against Logi. Even disregarding ECM throwing a couple of Rapier TPs and Webs onto a Logi ship turns them into a wet paper towel to Battleship guns. The problem is most people don't think in these terms and the skill required by the individual pilots to pull off a strategy like this is fairly high. So it's generally considered better to go with the more reliable, if potentially less effective, Logi+deathball strat.

  • Stackable BPCs that dont clog up your hangar. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Combining runs of otherwise identical BPCs is probably the most likely way this could be resolved, since adjusting run count on a BPC is already possible. The trick is actually implementing it and making sure there's no way to get low-quality BPCs to turn into higher quality ones.

  • Supercarrier Force Auxilliary Ships (Logistical Supercarriers) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Old Pervert wrote:
    Well truthfully, if you scale to infinity you have unkillable supers now. Consider a fleet with 10 supers and 100 FAX (you did say infinity and I am stopping well short of that). Unless you can alpha the supers, they're unkillable until the logistics goes away. Even with titans spamming DDs, unless they alpha like 15+ DDs, the super isn't going anywhere.

    If you want something like that for subcaps, make them cap unstable. Say for example, a T2 logi whatever (frig/cruiser) able to perma-run its reppers for 45 seconds before going dry.

    It's enough to turn the fight in a pretty big way, without being able to permanently hold a gang up. Realistically, subcap logi only matter in small and medium engagements anyways - once you get into large engagements, it invariably turns into an alpha race.

    In the case of a small/medium engagement, it means logistics need not necessarily be the primary because they will dry up eventually and be at best marginally useful.


    At which point bringing Logi becomes a highly suspect maneuver because more DPS becomes more useful in many cases, or people will find a way around the cap instability. In either case you've done nothing particular good or fun with the meta.

    Before Logi become common most fights were straight up slug fests and numbers won out over basically anything short of gross incompetence.

    Anyone remember when spider-tanked BSes first became a thing? Never mind HAC fleets. Those were the days when small groups actually beat big ones, and to this day the only reason a large group loses to a small one is pretty much Logi and how they get used.

    I'm really not sure why people feel it would be more fun to have support ships *not* be key to how a fight plays out.

  • Ability to capture a citadel. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Scialt wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    It's intentional that you can't capture a Citadel. The old Outpost capturing system was more of a code restriction than a 100% desirable gameplay decision.

    Citadels are expensive and risky to deploy in hostile space. If you can capture one it's basically always the right decision to do so since if nothing else you can unanchor it and sell it.

    These things are supposed to be a mineral sink. If they stop dying, which is exactly what capturing them would do, they stop being a mineral sink.



    The problem is that right now there's not a whole lot of incentive to destroy a citadel right now (other than kill-mails).

    But I look at Providence and what seems to be happening with the upcoming removal of outposts (which are able to be captured). In a part of the year that normally has light activity... Providence is hopping. The belief is that people are getting ready to try to conquer chunks of the region before the outposts turn into to citadels so they can unanchor them and get dank isk.

    Effectively... this is the only way you can capture a citadel in Eve... and it's leading to content.

    I can understand the mineral sink idea... but if they're not being destroyed very much they aren't much of a sink.

    How about this. Use Entosis Links (or something similar) to capture a citadel instead of blowing it up in the final timer. Once captured, the citadel cannot be repackaged... only the original entity that deployed the structure can do that. The capturing entity CAN self destruct the structure.

    The capturing entity gets half of the payments made to asset safety to get stuff out of the citadel or retrieve assets from a destroyed citadel.

    So if there are 20 billion in assets in a null sec citadel (other citadel with no NPC stations in system) and you capture it and self destruct it... the people using asset safety will pay 3 billion in asset safety... and the controlling alliance/corp that captured it gets 1.5 billion of that 3 billion.

    This doesn't increase the amount the loser of the citadel pays... it simply gives some of what they lose to the "capturer" of the citadel. They can still blow up the citadels that serve no strategic purpose... but can capture ones that do. And they can profit off of going and capturing/blowing up citadels.

    The lack of ability to repackage means many will simply blow them up after capturing... but rake in a good reward in the process. And that reward will make them more likely to go after other citadels... self destructing more... causing more citadel demand... which acts as a better mineral sink.

    Thoughts?


    I think your thinking here is a bit backwards.

    First off, Citadels are being destroyed quite a bit. A quick glance at zKill will show you that. The poster-child for Citadel spam is Providence and since Citadels went live it's lost more than double the number of Citadels and ECs that are currently anchored there.

    If CCP goes through and does a balance pass on the reinforcement and timers, especially for Medium Structures, then it's very likely the pace of destruction will only increase.

    These things aren't supposed to be rare or killed *that* commonly. After all if only very large groups or those affiliated with large groups can keep a Citadel up then the game gets rather boring rather quickly for everyone. The idea that Citadels being relatively common is a problem is entirely subjective, and the idea that "Citadel spam" is going out of control is unsupported by the evidence.

    By the way, for contrast there used to not be a single High-Sec moon without a POS for roughly 10 jumps in every direction from Jita. We haven't even come close to putting that many Citadels in the same area.

    As for Provi...

    The reason that Provi is being targeted right now is because the Citadels that are going to be appearing there are valuable and going to be very limited in total number, so groups are looking to try and secure a few. Whether they unanchor them later or not is another thing entirely, since they'd lose the rare rigs on them if they do so.

    If you made it possible to capture regular Citadels it wouldn't drive the kind of conflict we're seeing over Provi, it would result in larger entities picking on smaller ones to steal their assets, because that's the most profitable way to run things. No one would be fighting over Provi for even a few dozen Fortizars, the losses in ISK wouldn't be made up for it in gains.

    Also the ability to flip strategically important Citadels is one of the reasons this is so broken as a concept. With that you don't even need to build your own base, you can just steal your enemy's and simultaneously deny them assets while gaining an instant base, no anchoring time needed.

    This whole idea of "knocking over Citadels for fun and profit" is just a massive perverse incentive. It creates bad gameplay, it won't lead to good fights, and it creates a strong Incentive for players to go around knocking over much smaller entities for their Citadels because it's profitable, especially in HIgh Sec.

  • [Proposal] CCP Please allow supers to dock in Fortizars in EVE Technology and Research Center

    ImYourMom wrote:
    honestly im literallyy sat here shaking my head and thinking are people seriously they dont support this. Eve n worse that some of you are actually happy to pay for another account just to fly a super? Have you got your head tested?
    Some people in eve i just find weird or really negative.

    Why would you NOT want to be able to dock your super and WHY would you want to pay for another account. I dont get it


    Oh oh! I can answer these!

    So, it's not about whether or not someone wants to be able to easily dock their Super, it's about whether or not they think it's balanced overall to be able to dock a Super in a structure that costs less than that ship, and about whether or not they want their enemies to be able to do that.

    Also it's fairly common among people able to afford a Super Carrier to have multiple accounts. Cost wise it generally costs less to PLEX and account for 12 months than it does to set up a Fortizar so the math is pretty simple, and then you don't have to worry about moving your Super around and making it vulnerable to use other ships, or about not being able to use your Super for some operation because your one character is off ratting or something elsewhere.

    Really overall both of these things make a lot of sense if you stop and think about it from other perspectives for even half a minute.

  • Ability to capture a citadel. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    It's intentional that you can't capture a Citadel. The old Outpost capturing system was more of a code restriction than a 100% desirable gameplay decision.

    Citadels are expensive and risky to deploy in hostile space. If you can capture one it's basically always the right decision to do so since if nothing else you can unanchor it and sell it.

    These things are supposed to be a mineral sink. If they stop dying, which is exactly what capturing them would do, they stop being a mineral sink.

  • Supercarrier Force Auxilliary Ships (Logistical Supercarriers) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Xain deSleena wrote:
    In large scale Capital fights involving Supers the Logistic capitals lose out to their more agile more powerful Combat counterparts. Over time during a large fight the ratio of Logistic Capital losses to Capital and Super Capital losses is disproportionate.

    Thus fleet fights boil down to who can kill Logistics quick enough. Perhaps that is how most fights are fought by primarying logistics. Yet when Super Capitals are on field the majority of the lower ranked Capital ships almost always are the bulk of the isk losses.

    This is only my observation of the main fights that get reported on.

    Why should Super Carriers be Combat ONLY?

    A Super FAX would be the real mothership of the game.


    Because a Super Carrier FAX would either be amazingly OP, or a terrible investment of resources. There's not a lot of middle ground here, since it's fairly rare that your actual limiting factor is the number of FAXes you can deploy, it's the survivability of those FAXes that matters. Even if you just gave them the repping power of a FAX and Super Carrier HP that would in and of itself be incredibly OP even if they had to use Triage.

    Also it's kind of intentional that the smaller Capitals are the bulk of the ISK losses. They also tend to be the bulk of the ISK fielded in any fight where the results or the ability to evac Super Caps is in any way in doubt. People don't drop large volumes of Supers or Titans if they think they might die.

    Xain deSleena wrote:
    They could be limited in their role, power and what they can rep so as not to allow too many of them to dominate. Yet is that not already what Combat Supers do sitting at the top of the tree, dominating EVE by large numbers?


    This is literally what FAXes are. They're limited in their HP, power, ect to prevent them from being overwhelming. If you throw a super-FAX on the table as well then everything else gets bent out of whack because currently Capital Logistics is based around the FAX. Not a FAX++.

    Daichi Yamato wrote:
    The point of fax and their siege mode is to put a limit in the amount of dps a fleet can tank. Being swallowed by overwhelming dps is deliberate. Otherwise you can just scale up infinitely and have unkillable supers again.

    If only there was something like that for sub-cap logi.


    Sub-cap Logi don't really have the same issues as Capital Logi because they don't have nearly the HP buffer that a FAX has, so at a certain point they just get alpha'd between reps or even in spite of reps. Especially if you use EWar to negate their speed and sig tank advantage. If you can land clean hits you can nuke most Logi cruiser fits with less than half a dozen arty Battleships. The trick is landing those clean hits.

  • Setting that prevent misstypes on the market in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Donnachadh wrote:
    Ignoring the rest of the conversation here or any other topic referenced.

    The ability to screw up an order is simply the game working as intended. Market characters by and large face very little in the way of risk and now you want to remove one of the few risks they actually face that being their own carelessness or clumsy fingers on a keyboard. My response is NO WAY IN HELL, be more careful, slow down and look at what you have entered BEFORE you commit the order to the market. If the no thousands separators thing is the problem then enter your numbers into a spread sheet that has separators and then copy paste them to the game when you are sure they are correct.

    Setting all of that aside your idea is terrible because it removes the option one has of doing something crazy just to see how others respond or in an attempt to influence the market. And yes there are some of us out here that will throw away very large sums of ISK simply to watch others scramble to make sense of it all.


    Couple of points here.

    While I don't like OP's idea I dislike it largely for reasons of implementation and practicality. I do agree that mistakes should be because of intentional action not fat-fingering a key.

    This is precisely the reason the safety was introduced for in-space combat, though I will concede that in that case there was certainly an element of "lets not get the newbies killed by the police" at play as well.

    Also OP's idea does not remove the ability to do stupid, it's basically a safety that the player has to manually set and enable. So if you want to set a buy order on a Carrier for 10b you still can.

  • [Proposal] CCP Please allow supers to dock in Fortizars in EVE Technology and Research Center

    StarterrorPrime wrote:
    Actually I kind of agree with this cause its stupid that I could manufacture a supercapital ship in a Fortizar but not dock one there, same goes with the Azbel in this regard.


    This has literally always been the case. You can manufacture Capitals at a POS that can't store them, and you can manufacture Supers at a POS that can't dock them at all.

    The only thing missing off of Citadels for Supers at present compared to a POS or Outpost is some kind of bumping protection on Tethering, and CCP have indicated they're working on that.

  • Setting that prevent misstypes on the market in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Shadowlance wrote:
    And how this "great" system is helpful with current event items? They're trading intensively and are volatile as hell atm. So this system is actually useless for them. Or for example you want to set an order in some faraway system for a different than average price - and again this system only causes troubles.


    The answer is "not very" but that's going to be the case with any new item since there's a lack of history on its price, and the price is changing rather rapidly.

    However, considering this is an extreme minority of cases and the current system doesn't actually prevent you from doing anything it still works fine, you simply need to stop and double-check when the warning pops up. The problems it causes are minimal compared to a system that actually locked your UI out of a specific action.

    Shadowlance wrote:
    I really don't see how "get average price of typeid" is less server intensive than "get current price of typeid". Moreover - everyone is checking prices before any order manipulations - so checking in addition another "average price" is actually causing more server load, than using already gained and cached results.


    Let me see if I can explain this in a way that a non-programmer will understand.

    So, to get this single precalculated value is a single operation. I just tell the computer "get that number". Simple, only one operation required.

    To find the current highest buy price or current lowest sell price on the other hand I need to get *all* the buy or sell prices on the market. Lets call that number N. So, I need to get N values and then I need to sort them to actually find the highest or lowest one, which takes roughly N*Log(N) time to accomplish.

    This means that to get that single pre-calculated value the server needs to make 1 operation. To find the current highest sell price or lowest buy price the server needs to perform roughly N*Log(N) operations, which is a couple orders of magnitude more, and it needs to do that every time someone takes an action that performs this operation.

    Absolute best case here is the server just hands you the values and your local machine does the sorting, though that's still N values retrieved vs 1, so still exponentially more load on the server, just a slightly smaller exponent.

    In fact, because of how data retrieval works even in the case of zero buy or sell orders for a given item in a region it's *still* more load on the server to return that zero values because the server has to actually check that there are zero values for that item, where as with the single precalculated value it just knows that there's a space for a value that it needs to go get and it can easily retrieve it based on the item being looked at.

    That's why even if CCP were to implement something like this it wouldn't actually do what you seem to really want, work off of the absolute current state of the market, because that would be way too computationally expensive.

    Shadowlance wrote:
    As for the rest: As for me it's hard to imagine that people would complain about the setting they've changed by their own hands. But i can understand your point - people always complain(some may consider this topic as an example Blink)
    As for where this setting could be - not the big difference. Whereever CCP puts it. I've picked the wallet settings because most of the time i'm working with orders through it ;)


    If you can't believe this would cause problems and can't believe people would complain about those problems I can only direct you to the entire rest of these forums as a point of reference. This is literally the reason UIs very very *very* rarely actively put a hard restriction on stupid actions that are valid, and only restrict invalid actions.

    The only place I can think of where anything like this has been done in the Eve UI is the Safety, and that's *very* easily accessible and easy to toggle, and yet it still manages to cause issues.

  • Rorqual and Stop the Cycle! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The whole point of a siege cycle is that you're stuck for the full duration. If CCP wanted you to be able to stop the cycle in 30 seconds they would give the siege module a 30 second cycle time or something similar, rather than 5 minutes.

  • Setting that prevent misstypes on the market in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Shadowlance wrote:
    Actually this will cover 90% of cases. Because in most cases you just need to set order that is 0.01 isk(or in range of 1%) higher/lower than current topmost order on the market. Not this useless "average universe price index" used for current warning system.


    It's actually a 7-day weighted average of all sales of that item, and it's generally accurate enough more than 95% of the time, so very far from useless. Generally the only time it's not useful are for very small markets or niche items with little to nothing in the way of useful buy or sell orders already on the market, in which case your system would stumble as well.

    Also, the reason that single value gets used instead of live market data is because it's an order of magnitude less server intensive to just retrieve that one precalculated value instead of grabbing the entire active market info for an item every time you need to check an input. Considering the number one source of load on the markets right now is retrieval of market orders like this I find it highly unlikely CCP would implement something like this in this way, they'd likely as not just use the average price, which we already have a warning for...

    Shadowlance wrote:
    That's why the notifier should say why it is not working. Or maybe even it should contain "go to wallet settings" button to be more helpful.


    At which point you've got *another* popup for people to complain about, as well as people complaining that they'd use this if it didn't have the popup, plus again because it's a hard block you're *still* going to have it creating issues for people. That's why games almost never put in place hard blocks on actions taken.

    Oh and the wallet is the last place I would ever think to look for something like this, at a minimum it should probably be somewhere in the market settings.

    So yeah, once again, I'm not seeing anything here that isn't already covered by the existing warnings 99% or more of the time, except that this is a hard-no (which has its own issues) whereas the warning isn't.

    The Eve markets are never going to be idiot proof, and something like this will create more problems than it will solve precisely because it's a hard-restriction on a UI function.

  • Setting that prevent misstypes on the market in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Shadowlance wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Again, as pointed out repeatedly in your previous topic, there is already a warning for this sort of thing.

    And as it was pointed out there that this warning is useless on many types of orders. And actually causing more troubles than helps.


    Which would still be the case with *this* warning/blocker/whatever. The only difference here is that this idea matches your particular use-case whereas the existing one has to meet the general needs of the userbase as a whole.

    Shadowlance wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Something like this that hard-prevents an action has more potential to cause problems than solve them, especially something like this that can be easily solved by simply checking your orders before posting them...

    At first - no one is 100% safe from misstypes, especially when you deal with many orders everyday. And at second - It was written above that this setting won't be active by default - so what are the troubles you're talking about? It'll be only activated by player intentionally.
    So if you feel yoursef 100% accurate - you just don't need it. But if you feel a bit clumsy or tired - it might be really helpful.


    Of course no one is ever going to be 100% safe from mistakes. That's the nature of reality. You can only mitigate and minimize, and this idea of yours will in no way change that.

    As for an example of problems this could cause, lets go with the most common issue this sort of hard-block creates. Reports of "the game won't let me do this thing because I turned on a setting without knowing what it does/turned it on accidentally".

    SurrenderMonkey wrote:
    It's not another warrant. Maybe it wasn't stated clearly - but this setting won't let you set(or change) order that is X% distinguished from the topmost on the market. For example: you'll type "15bil instead of "15mill" - and it'll notify "you've disabled ordres of 10% difference from topmost on the market" So if you really want to set 15bill - you should click wallet settings and disable this. No "click yes to proceed" noone reads. I'll add this in the first post to be more clear.


    And like I said, there's already a warning for 50% or greater difference, which an order of magnitude difference will always be. You've just either disabled it or gotten used to clicking through it.

  • Setting that prevent misstypes on the market in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Again, as pointed out repeatedly in your previous topic, there is already a warning for this sort of thing.

    Something like this that hard-prevents an action has more potential to cause problems than solve them, especially something like this that can be easily solved by simply checking your orders before posting them...

  • The missing ship... i still want to have! fire ship in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Never going to happen, and here's why:

    First off, something like this would be massively frustrating and not-fun to fight against. That's strike one, this thing is basically just made of frustration.

    Beyond that if this thing is cost effective it's OP, pretty much by definition. You're talking about a ship that lets you one-shot a lot of capitals in a suicide attack.

    If it's not cost effective compared to basically anything else you could be using that pilot for then no one will use it, except to take advantage of the aforementioned frustration factor.

    Thus CCP will never implement this, or any other, suicide ship concept. They're just not feasible, viable, or fun.

  • In Game Mail - allow "reply all" to be disabled per message in EVE Technology and Research Center

    It kinda sounds like what you want is an ability to send mails with no reply option at all. Like, a Corp or Alliance mail that goes to Notifications instead of Mail.

    That would both be simpler to implement and prevent the inevitable problems with allowing a third party to dictate how a portion of your UI works.

  • Heat and Module Damage repair in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Number one would either be useless or *incredibly* broken. If I'm understanding your intent here you're basically letting someone turn a downside into a bonus.

    Number two, it's called Nanite Repair Paste, there is zero reason to ever fit a module to do this.

  • Chinese Localization for Tranquility in EVE Technology and Research Center

    First, there's a thread for this already.

    Second, CCP literally can't. There is a Chinese version of Eve. It's called Serenity. Given this it's highly likely that there is very little actual demand for Chinese Language support on TQ, and further it's even more unlikely that CCP are legally or contractually allowed to do this.

    Since doing so would likely mean the closure of Serenity I highly doubt CCP are even going to entertain this idea.