EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-02-14 02:48
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-10-18 20:20
  • Number of Posts: 3,384
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 1,543

Cade Windstalker

Security Status 5.0

Last 20 Posts

  • 'Black Ops' bridge capable frigate in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Why on earth is this a good idea?

    Bomber fleets certainly don't need the buff, and there's very little else that can fit a covert cloak at the Frigate hull size that's worth bridging.

  • NPC Raitarus as a solution for faction battleship proliferation in EVE Technology and Research Center

    This is a pretty poor solution, all things considered, it takes things from feast, straight past the famine mark, and all the way to an extinction level event.

    Seriously I think you're massively under estimating what normal consumption of Faction Battleships looks like even without them main lining as a Null Sec fleet doctrine.

    Overall this is hideously complex and unnecessary. If CCP wants to tweak the availability of these BPCs there are far better and more straightforward ways of doing so.

  • To: The Developers (Need More Control For The Players To Make Laws) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Please, Fifty Three, at least do some reading on how the game already works before spouting out whatever pops into your head...

    Players can already dictate rules for their space. Customs Offices are already taxable by their owners.

    The enforcement of rules beyond tax rates on Citadels and Pocos is up to the reach of a player's guns. See: Rental Alliances in Null Sec.

  • To: The Developers (Please Make the Factions' Ships/Structures Equal) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Fifty Three wrote:
    Currently it is not Fair.
    I suggest to put a percent or point system in place when it comes to assigning attributes of all Factions' structures and ships.
    Capacitor recharge rate
    Capacitor Capacity
    Shield recharge rate
    Shield Capacity
    Power grid
    CPU output

    i.e for 1 GJ per second of Capacitor recharge rate, then a certain percentage/point is taken away for the system. So that all ships+structures from all the factions do not have an advantage over the other with their BASE/essential attributes.

    It is currently unbalanced to what I can tell. I use Cladari and tried out the different modules/rigs etc. In simulate window/screen and based off a ship's(/"structure" perhaps too) base attributes, they are inequality versus another faction. I will give you example of Caldari Rokh battleship, I maxed the shield regen/Resist/ Shield tank with it, versus Amarr Abaddon Battleship that is suppose to be its equivalent , againt Armour and the Amarr Battleship will always win a fight, or most likely to.

    The Amarr Abaddon battleship, can attain with fittings(rigs/modules) more resistance, on its armour than the Caldari Rokh with shield resistance. Furthermore, the Abaddon has a larger Capacitor, and other essential systems like better powergrid, that makes it better.

    So, first off, your example is bad.

    Just looking at you base claim, that an Abaddon can get more resists than a Rokh, that's pretty much flatly incorrect. The Rokh and Abaddon are almost exactly equivalent in resists even though the Rokh only has six mid slots to fit modules in while the Abaddon has seven low slots. This is because the Rokh can take advantage of the higher bonus of an Adaptive Invulnerability Field where the Abaddon is stuck using Energized Adaptive Nano Plating which provides a lower bonus and when maxing out resists both ships will use at least one of each of these.

    On top of that your general line of thinking here completely fails to look at what each ship trades away to achieve these results. The Abaddon needs to give up all of its low slots while the Rokh only gives up mid slots. This means that the Rokh can fit DPS upgrades while the Abaddon can't, which means in a straight up slug fest the Rokh wins.

    However realistically it's even more complicated than that. Both ships are never going to fit pure tank, and each focuses on and trades away different things. They're not meant to be equivalent ships in any meaningful sense of the word, they're different hulls with different bonuses and they're naturally going to be better and worse at different things even though their base bonuses are fairly similar.

    This whole idea that Eve's balance can be defined as a series of trade offs between stats, or even the idea that one ship from a given race should be equivalent to a different ship from a different race is ridiculous. The only thing of any value in this idea is as an example for how *not* to balance a game.

  • [speculation thread] Future of Eve after sale in EVE Communication Center

    Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    I love how people don't seem to understand that this isn't Eve being sold, this is private stakeholders who *already own chunks of CCP* selling their stake in CCP as a company. Maybe.


    So they're abandoning ship because of the direction the game is heading in or a lack of progress/profit.
    That would not bode well either.

    That's not it either. Groups and individuals can decide to sell their stake in a venture for all kinds of reasons, and rarely because they think it's going to completely fail. This is especially true for things like game companies where there's very little value outside of whatever they're currently doing right now. Since CCP doesn't own a lot of expensive IP there's very little value outside of their existing games, if the business was doing badly they wouldn't be able to find a buyer.

    Also if you read the original article it's phrased as someone came knocking looking to buy, not they went out looking to sell.

  • idea for Customizable Buttons in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Seems like a ton of work for a really questionable benefit. If it's one button per command then it's not worth much to the vast majority of players, if it's multiple commands then it's botting. Why?

  • Suggestions to Rorq's and Dread's in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Coldbolt wrote:
    1. Skill to reduce the siege duration or compression without siege

    While they can bring in a decent amount of ore while in siege they are very vulnerable. Recent changes have not fixed this issue to their defensive abilities or overall reward compared to risk. I would like to see the Rorq get some boosts in other areas and not to ore yield. Either one of these suggestions would give it that edge over the orca.

    2. Dreadnoughts able to break the damage cap on structures by 4x (you know what i mean)

    Dreads are a bit of a waste right now in the game. Why use them at all when there are carriers! This simple change would make them valuable again to use in alliance warfare.

    1. That's the point, you're trading flexability for power, whether that's in the amount of ore brought in or the damage outputted by your Dread. That's why there is no skill for reducing siege timers because that just screws over everyone without the skill maxed since the risk/reward has to be balanced around that maxed value.

    Essentially if a skill was added for 30 seconds of siege time per level the base siege timer would become 7.5 minutes.

    2. That A. defeats the point of the damage cap and B. has a poor rationale right now. Dreads deal multiple times the damage of a Carrier and Fighters can be minced up and spat out by a prepared enemy, Dreads are much harder to deal with and will chew through Capitals besides.

  • Mission NPC's in EVE Technology and Research Center

    FYI OP missions have already gone through two pretty significant overhauls since the start of the game. Also it's year 14 now, not year 12... >.>

    Not all NPCs are supposed to have warped into the pocket, and it's just generally easier for the mission system to have NPCs appear rather than using the warp effects from a belt. Also easier from a balance perspective as well, since that delay time doesn't have to be factored into the mission balance, especially in Low and Null where people are more free to speed run with smartbombing fits and the like.

  • Probably been discussed a million times, but Large Transports please in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Stephanie Rosefire wrote:
    Not really, orca can only move fitted ships, not packaged ships, and bowhead is the exact same size as a freighter, so its just as slow.

    An Orca actually has quite a bit of regular cargo space, and a Bowhead is *much* faster than a Freighter because a Bowhead can fit a MWD and use that to warp faster. Throw in a warp speed rig and implants on top of that and it's not too bad for speed compared to, say, an Orca which is the baseline for the kind of cargo capacity you're asking for (while also complaining that it doesn't carry enough).

    Stephanie Rosefire wrote:
    -_- yes, but you cant fit a fitted battleship into an orca -_- let alone more than one. and im not talking about about fitted ships, im just talking about packaged ships, which an orca cant hold more than 1 packaged battleships, 2 with certain fits.

    And yet that's exactly the kind of cargo capacity you're asking for...

    OP, it's not supposed to be quick and easy to move large volumes of stuff around space. That's why Freighters are slow, that's why ships get slower quickly as cargo capacity increases.

    If you want to haul a large number of hulls around either get an Orca or a Bowhead, or just bite the bullet and get a Freighter.

  • So The BR Sotiyos in EVE Technology and Research Center

    FT Diomedes wrote:
    Working as intended. CCP designed a PVE site that anybody could attempt to run. It's accessible content for everyone. Not just players like me with 200m+ SP and ten years experience playing the game. It doesn't require 250+ Machariels. It doesn't require Capitals or Supercapitals. Literally anyone can do this site. And that is a great thing. Especially once the other pirate factions start putting up their own Sotiyos and there are potentially 5 of these sites up at the same time.

    Normally I'd agree, but we're talking about something that drops Faction Capital BPCs. It sorta feels like the investment required for this should be a bit more than a blob of speed tanked Frigates worth less than a few blinged out mission battleships.

    It's not so much that someone beat it, it's that they beat it in a way that's really hard to drop on from a PvP perspective, and really really cheap compared to the rewards.

    Rhaegon Aesir wrote:
    Lothros Andastar wrote:
    Bring your supers with bomb fighters to kill them all. Or bring a domi fleet with Warrior II's

    I mean they already tried 20+ Rattlesnakes with logi, and they got absolutely rekt by the blood raiders...and with the escalations, somehow I doubt supers would fare much better.

    Anyone who played around with these things on the test server could have told you that fleet was going to get rolled in hilarious fashion. They didn't have nearly enough Logi or DPS and the minimum spawn for the Blood Raiders seems to be at least a few dozen cruisers plus Logi and EWar ships.

    Dropping capitals actually works *really* well because the Blood Raider capitals spit right out of the Sotiyo and aren't all that effective. Since there's no Supers that they can drop a Titan seems to chew through the dreads pretty quick.

  • Drone Carrier in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Draconian Arcane wrote:
    Now since carriers are pretty much fighter only drone boats,

    Wouldn't be nice to have a drone carrier, just for drones...

    I remember back in the day when you could fly 10 drones from a sub cap but that was when drones were bat **** crazy and the "OBEY ME DRONE!!" script was still being worked on...

    Was thinking that maybe a new Battlecruiser or Battleship could be introduced to manage such tasks as providing drone support...


    --Allowing for the command of up to 10 light/medium/heavy/sentry drones
    --No hardpoints for guns or missiles as the ship wouldn't be a front line ship
    --******** bonus's for light/medium/heavy/sentry drones as well as racial bonus for EW/Logi drones

    This is a straight up terrible and poorly balanced idea.

    First off, drones are little lag machines. Ships in Eve could originally field 10 drones instead of five and it was scaled back because of performance issues.

    On top of that Slowcat fleets were cancerous. We don't need something that basically just supports that sort of gameplay.

    On top of all of *that* we don't need a subcap putting out old-Carrier levels of DPS. If you want a drone boat there are a number available to choose from. The Ishtar, Vexor, Myrmidon, and Dominix are all great in their own way, go check out one of those. The Rattlesnake, Gila, and Worm also have interesting drone bonuses.

    Draconian Arcane wrote:

    -new content (who doesn't like new content)
    -introducing a new style of play and strategies
    -provide a mass amount of dps/ew/logi support
    -adds a little demand back into the market not just for drones but for mins, fits and ships

    "New content" is basically never a significant pro unless you're talking about a new mechanic. "But it's new content" is never a reason to add a new ship all on its own.

    10 drones is not a new style of play.

    "Yay more DPS out of one ship" is power-creep, not a pro.

    The market is fine, this is not needed and certainly not a pro to a ship like this.

  • Ore research proposal-Orca Class Variant in EVE Technology and Research Center

    You need a balance and gameplay rationale, not a lore one if you want something added to the game.

    You've presented none of that and all I'm getting out of this is a ship that would either be hilarious OP for High Sec or too expensive to be useful compared to the available alternatives.

  • Player-AI PvE in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Burner Missions are that way ->

  • [speculation thread] Future of Eve after sale in EVE Communication Center

    I love how people don't seem to understand that this isn't Eve being sold, this is private stakeholders who *already own chunks of CCP* selling their stake in CCP as a company. Maybe.


  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    It's not a lot of work. I could sift through this whole thread in 10 minutes optimistically, 30 minutes pessimistically, and generate bullet point arguments 'for' and 'against,' things most people 'agree' vs. 'disagree' on, etc.

    I highly doubt you could actually read everything posted in this thread in 30 minutes, let alone check all of the various claims made, vet any links, ect.

    This isn't even a huge thread either, it's been running for over a month and it's only 37 pages. If CCP posted up a public thread asking for actual feedback on something like this it'd be 36 pages inside of a day or two.

    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    By bringing in people who actually know what they're talking about with regards to a large swath of ship balance they can....

    1) If they actually do that, great. But who says they will? Just saying 'sign up for focus group' doesn't necessarily accomplish that.

    2) Knowing what you are talking about, and not being biased and wanting to do 'the right thing,' is two different things. So even if they get people who know what they are talking about, they still may be biased or not want to do the right thing. Some guy could have more knowledge than anyone else about ship balance, he may be able to beat anyone else in the game 1v1 PvP. He may also have an agenda of preserving his favorite OP ship.

    I say cast a wider net. Sure, you'll get a lot of garbage opinions, as you stated above. But those are extremely easy to filter out.

    1. This is literally how these focus groups work. Go read the post and check the contents of the previous focus groups.

    No seriously, go look at the past focus groups, read some of the logs, and look at the list of participants.

    2. Eliminating this, or at least reducing it, is part of the point of a focus group. Individuals will all be biased, even the devs. If you gather a group of people with different view points together though then the biases average out to something approximating the gravitational center of opinion on a subject. Sure, not everyone is going to agree with the end result, but it's a lot better than only having input from one or two people, or from people all belonging to one group.

    Really, for someone who spends as much time on the forums as you do (I know, I'm around here too to watch you posting) you seem to *greatly* underestimate the volume of garbage an open discussion can produce.

    Case and point one and two, 95% of everything posted in the Player Features and Ideas Discussion section and half the comments on the last round of Rorqual changes. Most of what's posted in PFaID is either hilariously impractical or hilarious bad. Most of the comments in the Rorqual nerfs thread ignored available evidence or were just straight up bad economics.

    In a completely open discussion for every good and well thought out comment you're going to have ten idiotic comebacks and maybe one good response and then the chain continues. Discussions like that are exhausting for the participants, don't encourage good feedback, and are generally just a terrible way to get anything done.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    Re: Focus Group

    The way this appears to be being organized doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me. Just asking for people to randomly sign up is a recipe for getting a stacked deck. The first couple people volunteering are wormholers who fly the things in wormholes as a matter of course. It's like... do you think they will want their bread and butter nerfed?

    I'm not jumping the gun or pronouncing judgment. But I will say if they aren't careful as hell in choosing who the focus group members are, this is going to be a disaster.

    It's not like it's first-come first-served for focus groups, and the previous ones have worked pretty well.

    The whole point of a focus group is to have a lot of different perspectives to create a good discussion. CCP aren't just going to fill the thing with Wormholers or Null players, or PvEers.

    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    Lillith Sakata wrote:
    @beast: How else are they going to get any feedback? demand it?

    Personally, I think the best way to do it would be a thread like this. Anyone can participate, put their views out, defend them, ask or answer questions from the devs, etc. In other words, an open forum. They could even start by copying and pasting the entirety of this thread into the OP, and proceed from there.

    Just having a couple people on some 'panel' hash things out is a prescription for disaster.

    Personally I *really* disagree. As much as I enjoy debating with others on the forums and generally participating on here the quality of feedback is about one step short of a cow patty on most days, and it's a *lot* of work to sort through all the digressions, stupid arguments, and niggling over details to get to the actually good discussion.

    With a focus group CCP can weed out anyone they feel is just going to cause trouble or detract from the discussion and can focus on getting a lot of subject matter experts from a lot of different game areas together in one place.

    While this thread has had some good discussion it's also had a ton of personal attacks, digressions, bad information, and unsupported speculation thrown into it. Out of 36 pages of debate and discussion I'd be surprised if there's even 6 pages of actually good and useful feedback and discussion on the T3Cs, and most of *that* is at a fairly low level of "this is why they're OP and here's the numbers/proof".

    By bringing in people who actually know what they're talking about with regards to a large swath of ship balance they can avoid the basics and skip a lot of the low level debate as to whether or not the ships actually need fixing and get around to fixing them.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:

    Again, 160 dps and your "massive tank" is shut down by a single med neut. Damn near anything will tank it and shut you down. You are also trying to compare it to our AHAC proteus which is just laughable as it cannot do a single thing our proteus does, none of your shitfit active setups are any good.

    Once again you miss the whole point of EVE which is not surprising given you're obsessed with your PL Proteus fit as the only viable fit in game apparently.

    The only thing that matters in EvE is the end result for a solution to a problem. If you have an issue and you fit a ship and that fit solves the problem you fit it for then its a viable and useful fit.

    This is the sort of conversation I have with EvE players on a regular basis:

    Me: I fit my ship with [Item] because I had a specific problem to solve and I killed all the enemy and my problem was solved.
    Baltec Like Player: Hahaha why would you put a [item] on a [insert ship], you're an idiot. You fit it like this [insert copy paste fit from ZKill that would never work for the problem I had].
    Me: Um yeah but it worked, I beat [X] ships solo.
    Baltec Like Player: Lololol that wasn't the fit that was because that fleet was ********. Your fit sucks.
    Me: ....

    Its completely ******** to be like the above Baltec Like Player (BLP). Innovation and EvE go together and most intelligent people know (like Alexander the Great) that often thinking outside the square gives better results than following the crowd.

    Have a nice day.

    And what you're being told, and have been told repeatedly, is that your fits are not a solution to the problem being proposed. They're either impractical, overly expensive for a worse result, or simply don't work the way you seem to think they do.

    Your fits seem to either rely on a specific situation or are completely ignoring the actual discussion you're inserting them into. For example that Onyx might work for you, but that doesn't mean that it's actually better than a T3C doing the same job. It's certainly not OP, and it's not hard to counter. Any 15 man gang, frigate or otherwise, that ran from that did so out of ignorance or incompetence, not because your fit is godly.

    A fit that only works in a specific situation is fair enough, but not when you throw it out and say that it beats out a fit that works in *far more* situations or that your fit just straight up loses to in comparison. Either in cost, effectiveness, or both, as every fit you've thrown up here has done.

    An-Nur wrote:
    T3 rebalance on Chaos

    T3C new subs

    And according to Gorski Car SP loss will stay, so there's end of that argument

    That's the same list that we saw from the Fanfest slides, it doesn't even have stats or the context the fanfest presentation offered.

    Also as things go SP loss is fairly easy to add or remove and tweak the balance of the ships accordingly. Unless you have a link where Gorski is flat out quoting CCP saying SP loss isn't going anywhere then there's *always* room for debate.

  • The degraded and forgotten ships. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    So, first off, the Rokh isn't a bad ship. If there's any problem with it it's simply that Large Rails aren't really good in the Meta right now. Beam Lasers have better tracking and Arty have alpha. Rails, as something in the middle, aren't really big in large Null fights right now. In smaller gangs there are simply better ships.

    As for this...

    Do you recall thr golden fleet of RnK? Who truly proved that even when small in numbers compared to many times their offencive force one pilot could change the tides of war depending on his actions.

    This is an unrealistic fantasy, to put it simply.

    The only way a small gang beats a large group is if the large group ****s up spectacularly or is massively less skilled than the small group. Any expectation of David vs Goliath playing out on a regular basis is an unrealistic fantasy. There is, after all, a reason that events like this are legends in real life, and even fairly noteworthy when they occur in Eve.

    And yeah, your post isn't an idea, it's a story. There might be a concrete idea in there somewhere but if there's one besides "buff Rokhs to OP heights" I'm really not seeing it.

    Oh and massive thanks for that formatting Rawketsled, that was unreadable as posted.

  • [Winter] Mobile Siphon Unit Idea in EVE Technology and Research Center

    If I recall right someone already asked about Mobile Siphon Units at Fanfest.

    CCP's response was basically that it was an area of gameplay that never really matured or went where they'd hoped it would. In the new system it'll be replaced with simply stealing the ore directly.

    The activity logging doesn't need a counter. If you don't want your mining logged then blow up the refinery and take the spot yourself. Knowing who mines what and being able to execute possible retribution against a thief is the privilege of the person who owns the expensive structure that yanks the moon chunk into orbit in the first place.

  • [118.7] Warp Bubble Dragging Change in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
    Henry Plantgenet wrote:
    Can you chain bubbles to get around the 500km restriction?
    Place one at 500km from the gate and then one 1000km (500km from the first one)
    Which bubble do you land in?

    Do.... do you not even know how drag bubbles work?

    You land I the first one your warp vector would cross

    The answer to your question Henry is no, you can't. If you put one bubble at 500km and one at 1000km you'll land in the 500km one every time no matter which side of the gate it's on.

    Lugh I think he's talking about regular bubbles not drag ones. So

    X < target ----------500km---- 1st bubble ------- another 500km ------ 2nd bubble