EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-05-05 23:17
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-06 13:18
  • Number of Posts: 4,429
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Cearain

Security Status -2.8
  • Plus 10 NV Member since
  • It Burns When I'm PvPing Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Scram/web/bugged in EVE Gameplay Center

    Elektra Frued wrote:
    So a scram is supposed to stop your ship from using prop or warp,
    a web is supposed to cut your max velocity down to a fraction of it's former ability....
    So why then when I see a red coming in hot and I click on a station and click dock and my ship starts to align in an attempt to warp to safety does my ship hit the brakes and go to 0ms when I get scrammed.
    There is NO ITEM IN THE GAME that is supposed to stop your ship to 0ms.... But the scram in effect does this if you're trying to enter warp when it hits you. Even a web only takes a fraction of your speed, it doesn't make you stop in place.
    This is a problem for survivability.. What should happen here is that your ship should remain aligned but just not enter warp. When you're in your ship and manage to break the target lock or neut out your tackler you have a very small window to warp out. If you have to realign every time you fail to warp then it's going to be harder to get out for a reason that is infact a bug in the game. I've submitted this as a bug many times and been told that it's working as intended... So why is this intended? Why is a scram killing my align speed.... Why do you intend to make it even harder to get out of an already difficult situation?



    Comment history

    Created: 2/17/2017 6:32:13 PM
    Bug Hunter
    The Game Design team confirmed that this is working as intended.



    That is how it works but I agree a scram should not kill your speed. It's annoying.

  • Dev blog: PLEX Changes On The Way! in EVE Information Center

    Olleybear wrote:
    Cearain wrote:

    I think the 2 sentences mean what he says. That is he will use the information about ccps long term plans that he gets from being on csm to benefit his coalition.

    You ask for evidence that people from csm used information to their benefit here. I gave you a direct quote from a csm member saying he will do just that with the nda information. And you say well its just generally he will do that its not proof he did that here.

    Well why do you think he didn't do that here? I mean clearly he has no qualms about using nda to benefit his alliance. Since he made that clear why would we think he wouldn't do that here?

    Hello my friend! We(1) are eager to answer why We do not think he breached the NDA as of yet. If a CSM member were to use NDA information ahead of time and move to give themselves or someone else an unfair in game advantage by disclosing said NDA information before CCP released this information for public consumption, that CSM member would be removed from the CSM. Further, depending on how egregious the breach, that person could receive a ban from playing Eve Online. CCP has internal tools which can catch nefarious activity by any CSM members who might be jockeying for in game advantage by breaching the NDA. Surely this CSM member would be removed post-haste by CCP should he try and would have been removed already if he were currently breaching the NDA.

    Here are a few links showing actual proof of what We say:
    Ankhesentapemkah for NDA breach
    Larkonis Trassler of CSM 3 for NDA breach

    There are quite possibly more than just the above two We have linked but We do not have the inclination nor, dare We say, even the need to pursue more proof for Our side of the debate.
    This, my friend, is solid proof of CCPs past actions showing they will indeed remove and ban people from the CSM for doing exactly what you are claiming Aryth is doing/planning on doing based on two sentences he once uttered. We are eagerly awaiting for you to show proof, not more words, Proof to Us of an actual NDA violation, and not a simply reposting the same two sentences over and over again.

    Fine Print: (1)We, Our, and Us denotes the multiple personalities are getting bored of not seeing proof of illicit actions but merely a reposting of words.


    I can't tell if you are serious talking about this "we" stuff. But whatever. You say "CCP has internal tools which can catch nefarious activity by any CSM members who might be jockeying for in game advantage by breaching the NDA." Of course if they give out the information out of game - which most discussion about eve is out of game CCP has no way to detect it. They do not have wiretaps set up on csm members. So CCP is stuck with a situation where they just see characters buying ans selling items. Why they do that is not part of the game. It is not something ccp can track at all.

    Note Larkonis trassler not only did the trades on his own account but he also didn't even leave iceland before he did the trades. When asked about it he admitted it. So to hold him up as an example of how ccp can track anything down is just silly.

    With Ank we don't know the situation and from what limitted information we had it did not sound like a situation where she was trying to get in game advantage but rather she actually gave some of this information to another company or misrepresented something. But either way this just demonstrates people on csm can not be trusted and that is the clear history we have. There are others you missed.

    There are so many ways people can avoid getting caught taking advantage of this information it is just silly to say ccp will know. Lets say a bunch of people in an alliance decided they wanted to switch from manufacturing rorquals to making some other thing. Now maybe they did this because their csm member tipped them off. But then again maybe they did just decide it was time to use their minerals for something else. How is ccp to know this? If they ban the csm member when it just happened that the alliance made the decision to change (and csm was not involved at all) then they are clearly wrongfully banning him without sufficient evidence. But how could they possibly know whether a phone call was made? Answer: they can't. So anyone with even a small ounce of intelligence can use this information to help their alliance just like Aryth said he would do.

    Do you think aryth was lying when he said he would do this? Do you not see how his explicitly saying he will do this and then ccp not even caring demonstrates what a joke this is? If a politician says hey I am going to skim money and do crooked deals for my friends if I get elected, and then people go ahead and elect him anyway, the only take away is that it is understood that bribes are business as usual.

    For you to say my directly quoting someone saying they intend to use nda material to help their alliance is not evidence of anything just shows how out of touch you are.

  • Blade Runner 2049 10.6.2017 in EVE Communication Center

    Blade runner was a movie that really got me into sci fi. About time they did sequel.

  • IT'S TIME FOR KILLS TO BE EARNED in EVE Gameplay Center

    Hey now, no calling people a dummy. Or a stupid. I know this is an emotional issue but let's settle down.

  • Structure services for faction war? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Oreb Wing wrote:
    Cearain wrote:
    Oreb Wing wrote:
    As for everyone having different ideas for FW, I think we can all agree that if an asset is tied to system upgrades and tier level, it should be a FW objective, not an open invitation to irrelevant non-FW blobs that tilt the playing field ....


    I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Can you give some examples of what you would want changed from the current mechanic. Without something concrete its hard to say if we all agree on it.

    For example, do you think neutrals should be able to enter fw plexes? That would seem to support your overall goal of isolating fw objectives to only fw players wouldn't it? I personally would not want to play in such a system, but many people have proposed that over the years. It might also be good for new players.

    I think this is outside the realm of what structures or structure services would be good for fw in particular. So I think it would be a discussion about whether we should have more than one fw system that appeals to different playstyles.


    I don't want to derail your thread by pushing my own ideas here. I have one going at the moment for changes I think would be great to see. One of my throws, in particular, does land within the topic of discussion here. In my attempt to slay two birds with one stone, I suggested that Citadels be given a unique role within the FW theatre by giving them the chance to act as the Infrastructure Hub - in essence, to replace it by having it deploy over it. It would function the same way as the ihub and become vulnerable in the same way as the ihub does now, forever solving the problem of ridiculous multiple vulnerability windows while at the same giving the defending party (one in possession of the Citadel) the ability to offer a grand last stand, with something meaningful at risk. I would limit their number of course to 1 Citadel per corporation. So. In this way you have planted your flag in a given place and everyone can see it; it can only be assaulted by those taking part in FW; it limits their numbers so that they are still present, but not so much in a way that they hurt the theater (as they have) by making strategy in docking restrictions and stations meaningless; they provide a concept and foundation for system upgrades; they enable smaller rising corporations a fighting chance and give alpha's something to aspire to in an Omega clone. Something to call your own.




    I don't think it is derailing the thread. I think it sort of fits with the idea of finding new ideas for structures for faction war. I am not exactly sure what you are talking about here though.

    I see you are saying that instead of a bunker a faction war corp could put up a citadel to act as the bunker right? So no one would be able to attack that citadel at all until enough plexes were run to make the citadel vulnerable, but then the citadel would be vulnerable the whole time and not just at set times right? Also a neutral could never shoot the citadel at all only fw militias. And you would only need to kill the citadel one time I assume not in seperate stages.

    In any event that would make bunker busting much harder wouldn't it? Especially if someone stuck a fortizar there. It would also pretty much allow a station in station less systems.

    Could could say amarr have a minmatar alt corp put the citadel up first and then lock everyone out?

    Overall I see some pros and cons to this idea. I like the idea of replacing npc bunkers with something players own and pay for.

    Oreb Wing wrote:

    Now as for the delay on the FW map on blips for objectives being captured. I have never seen the blip and headed to a system to see it empty. On some occasions a plex had just been completed. That is my experience of it. It was very useful and I used it as a tool to find fights for my squad and to camp outgoing gates from runners, or what you call rabbit plexers. If you can't run as fast as a rabbit, you outsmart him. Be like a trapper and use some other tricks. A cockbag thrasher is a wonderful thing.


    Unless they changed something since I stopped playing the map information was really outdated and fairly useless.

    As far as chasing rabbits and trapping them, that is more like hunting. Playing a hunting game has absolutely no appeal to me. I want to play a war game. That is I want to play a game where both sides anticipate there will be combat and bring it on. Not one side tries to run away and other tries to catch them. Again I see lots of people like the idea that fw is more like hunting than war. And that is fine. That is why I propose ccp make a couple of faction wars with slightly different mechanics.

  • Dev blog: PLEX Changes On The Way! in EVE Information Center

    Olleybear wrote:
    Cearain wrote:
    Olleybear wrote:


    Perhaps you could enlighten us(2) with a preponderance of evidence that the CSM is profiteering on this latest change to our wondrous Eveonline community?



    Aryth:

    "What happens when you put the long term planner on the CSM and seeing the long term plans. Good things for us that's what."


    BTW for those who don't know Aryth is a member of csm.

    Salutations! It would seem you are implying that a CSM member by the name of Aryth is currently manipulating the market for PLEX based on two sentences that member apparently uttered. This hardly constitutes proof of a conspiracy over the price of PLEX via market manipulation. Indeed, the above sentence you quoted could mean just about anything.



    I think the 2 sentences mean what he says. That is he will use the information about ccps long term plans that he gets from being on csm to benefit his coalition.

    You ask for evidence that people from csm used information to their benefit here. I gave you a direct quote from a csm member saying he will do just that with the nda information. And you say well its just generally he will do that its not proof he did that here.

    Well why do you think he didn't do that here? I mean clearly he has no qualms about using nda to benefit his alliance. Since he made that clear why would we think he wouldn't do that here?

  • Alpha pvp? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Your locked to meta guns. But meta guns are not always so bad. Often people still won't use the t2 ammo even when they have t2 guns. And the meta guns save quite a bit on fitting, and they overheat longer! These are considerable trade offs. The fits here look pretty solid and I remember looking at decent gnosis fits for amarr but especially gallente using faction medium drones.

  • Structure services for faction war? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Oreb Wing wrote:
    As for everyone having different ideas for FW, I think we can all agree that if an asset is tied to system upgrades and tier level, it should be a FW objective, not an open invitation to irrelevant non-FW blobs that tilt the playing field ....


    I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Can you give some examples of what you would want changed from the current mechanic. Without something concrete its hard to say if we all agree on it.

    For example, do you think neutrals should be able to enter fw plexes? That would seem to support your overall goal of isolating fw objectives to only fw players wouldn't it? I personally would not want to play in such a system, but many people have proposed that over the years. It might also be good for new players.

    I think this is outside the realm of what structures or structure services would be good for fw in particular. So I think it would be a discussion about whether we should have more than one fw system that appeals to different playstyles.

    Oreb Wing wrote:

    Astrographically, and in terms of content, FW remains one of the best entry points for Alpha players. Where we take FW in the future should reflect this and take advantage of such potential and cultivate it.


    Again without a concrete example of what you mean by this, it is hard to say whether I agree or not. I tend to think FW is also one of the best endgames for veteran players who no longer want to invest allot of time in a computer game (like in null sec) but still would like to get some quick pvp and participate in a war. The goals of new and veteran players are not always contradictory, but they often can be. That is why again I think ccp should consider adding another faction war to the game.


    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=515016&find=unread

  • Structure services for faction war? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Oreb Wing wrote:

    We welcome this too, but, speaking for myself, wish for FW to have a better corner where we are left alone with our adversary, as in ihub fights. When one faction must destroy a vulnerable Infrastructure Hub, only FW players have the ability to shoot this structure. If there are structures for docking and such too, i wish for them to have the same conditions.


    This comment made it so clear to me that people just disagree about what they want fw to be. Accordingly I think ccp should just make more than one set of mechanics for different faction wars. I post about that here:

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6883824#post6883824

    If you want a system where there is little interference then I think you would want to move out of the current systems and maybe be in somewhere like aridia or even a new region ccp could create that is off the beaten path.

    Oreb Wing wrote:

    I don't understand how you expect to receive notifications, as if you expected to defend a constellation single-handedly? The FW window of the warzone shows small blips on where outposts are in progress of being captured. I do not know the delay on it, but it is surely there. Hover your mouse over it, sir. I think that should be enough as for intel one should receive remotely. Sorry. Couldn't help myself.


    No the current map does not show where outposts are currently being captured. It is delayed and therefore of very little use.
    I would think the real time intel could work in the map rather than through notifications. And no I wouldn't defend the constellation single handedly. As long as this service module is installed in a militia corp owned citadel the entire militia would get this intel for the constellation. Also they could make an entirely new structure that gives this intel. It wouldn't matter.

    I realize you and others think hiding and plexing is good for fw and do not think people should know when their sov plexes are attacked so they can quickly defend it. But that is just a difference in what we think would be fun. My telling you forcing me to keep several alts in various systems to plex is repugnant, wont do much. Because if you like that then you like it.

  • Make More Faction War in EVE Gameplay Center

    It's clear to me that people in faction war have very different ideas of how fw can be improved. Some want more npc. Some want no neutral interference. Many hate rabbit plexers, while some think they are good for the game. The fact is we can’t bend fw to suit all these different views. All of these views have been argued by many people over the years. So I think CCP should create more options. I think the core “plex for sov” structure is a good one. It’s just a matter of tweaking the system to suit different players views.

    CCP can use the pirate factions and the other sub-factions to create different dynamics. Instead of creating a pirate faction war where they just plug in the exact same mechanics they should vary them to suit different ideas of what faction war should be.
    I don’t think we should suddenly have 8 different faction wars going on. I don’t want to spread the playerbase too thin. But I think part of the wars can happen in the same space. Some should be in different or even new space (think about when ccp created black rise for the original fw.) But overall we should think about what fw is trying to be and realize we are trying to make one war mechanic work for too many different playstyles.
    1) Some people say it should be better for new players.
    2) Some players want quickly available pvp where they don’t have to spend hours hunting
    3) Some players like spending time hunting instead of quicker pvp
    4) Some people like the bigger fleets with cheaper ships
    5) I could go on here but the idea is to find a few views and try to suit the system to promote that playstyle. A one size fits all when people want contradictory systems is always doomed to failure right out of the gate.

    Ideally all of these players should have a sov structure that suits their play style.
    So the first group I would think might like it if the systems were not so busy. And they could have more limited engagement with other fw instead of also pirates. Perhaps if this appeals to you then you would want things like only fw participants are allowed in plexes. And you would want to be in a quieter or new region of space. Maybe there would be more rats to shoot. Honestly this is the opposite of what I as a more veteran player want so I will leave that to others.

    The players that want frequent pvp would want timer rollbacks, a real time intel tool as to when plex timers are rolling, and perhaps no station lockouts (or at least allow citadel docking in enemy space) so you don’t drive the enemy out. The would also want to be in busy systems and allow neutrals into plexes.

    Then maybe there should be a system just like the current pre citadel fw. No docking in citadels unless you own space.

    The idea is people like what they like. And there is no point in telling someone you should like this. But ccp can’t bend a single fw system to suite everyone. Give us some variety here.

    Before people cry about the pirate lp stores ccp can adjust for that. They can add new items and maybe even make an upwell faction that sells faction structure stuff. Of course they would want to make sure when these items first come out they cost allot of lp so its not too imbalanced as far as isk per lp. But then as the market adjusts they could adjust as well.

    Yes its allot of time and effort. But not really more than allot of the additions they made to the game recent and older. Moreover they don’t need to do it all at once.

  • Structure services for faction war? in EVE Gameplay Center

    I know that there is allot of resistance to structures in fw space because of the effect on station lockouts. I don't agree with station lockouts but I recognize there are pros and cons so Im not trying to discuss that here again. But in any event it seems ccp wants us to generally move to living into destructible stations.

    Regardless of how that goes (whether militias can dock in citadels where they don't have sov or not or whatever) are there any ideas for service modules that can be attached to structures that would benefit faction war participants in particular? These fw service moduies could be tied in with the lp store.

    Yes I would like it if a service for fw was that so long as that structure was owned by a fw corp it would provide intel as to plex timers being run in the constellation that the citadel was set up for any militia. No need to rehash arguments about this unless you have something new that wasn't brought up in the most recent thread here:
    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=511134&find=unread


    What about some other benefits to structures owned by fw corps? Cheaper manufacture of ships of that faction but more expensive for the directly opposing faction ships?

    FW Agent office modules? (of course there couldn't be too many in a constellation) FW LP store? Allow fw wide contracts? This would be helpfull if you limitted who could dock there so enemy alts didn't buy your contracts. Maybe a one or more fw structure modules would allow several different benefits.

  • FW and CSM elections: questions to my beloved pew pew community in EVE Gameplay Center

    Different players interested in fw, want fw to go in different directions and its hard to tell what direction most of the candidates want fw to go. I admittedly just read their voting blurb and the first post in their campaign threads. Others should feel free to correct or expand on what I say but here are a few bits I picked out

    Scylus: is advocating modifying citadels for station lock outs.

    Suitonia: has a list of things he offered, including a form of timer rollbacks and 1v1v1v1.

    DJ: would like more high sec fw events (not sure what he means) He would also like to modify citadels for lock outs. Finally he would also like more warp core stabs and additional escape modules.

    Kalen: says he knows someone who has been in fw and will run everything by him. But he doesn't say who that someone is.

    Quince Rin says he would like to take a harder stance on farmers. But he doesn't say whether he means people farming missions, plexes or both. Also he doesn't say how he would do it. Reduce pay? Make them fight in pvp? Im not sure.







  • Dev blog: PLEX Changes On The Way! in EVE Information Center

    Olleybear wrote:


    Perhaps you could enlighten us(2) with a preponderance of evidence that the CSM is profiteering on this latest change to our wondrous Eveonline community?



    Aryth:

    "What happens when you put the long term planner on the CSM and seeing the long term plans. Good things for us that's what."


    BTW for those who don't know Aryth is a member of csm.

  • Dev blog: PLEX Changes On The Way! in EVE Information Center

    Vulvona Ride-in wrote:
    since the mini plex will be "affordable", i see already all those market Warriors artificially push the value of those mini plex up.

    Affording 1.2B plex is harder than a 1.07B plex for example...

    but affording a 3M mini plex is not much harder than purchasing a 2M mini plex.

    Since the main goal is to enable micro transanction at an even micro-er level that those base on 1-plex-unit, i see the big majority of mini plex transaction being one with small volume of mini plex...

    My bet: montly plexing fees will explode ISK-wise!



    I'm not so sure. Especially if you need 500 microPlex to get gametime.

    Also will the microPlex be sold on a neweden wide market or will it still be regional markets?

  • Can we get rid of CSM after the recent PLEX insider trading fiasco? in EVE Communication Center

    Since the microPlex will have a new use (direct use in aurum store) the value of plex should go up.

    Moreover if csm knew ccp was going to delete huge amounts of aurum (all amounts less than 1000) that would also help the value of microPlex.

  • Dev blog: PLEX Changes On The Way! in EVE Information Center

    Sullen Decimus wrote:
    Gogela wrote:
    Obil Que wrote:
    Sullen Decimus wrote:
    SIEGE RED wrote:
    Interesting, every bit of market data hints more than strongly at a CSM leak prior to this devblog. It was already weird, yet now it's clear.


    What??


    Tinfoil 1: PLEX rising prior to announcement means CSM leaked the data and influenced prices
    Tinfoil 2: PLEX falls prior to announcement means CSM leaked the data and influenced prices

    Choose

    Tinfoil 1

    You don't think that's more than coincidence?

    OK than... Roll


    I just want to know why you think that we are told "hey guys we're going to inject a shitload of plex into the game when aurum converts" would ever equate to me wanting to go buy enough plex to jump the market up by 15%.



    Its not whether the strategy was smart it is whether it was due to a leak.

    Was the strategy smart? Well plex will now gain a new use that it didn't have before - i.e., it can now be used for everything that aurum used to be required for in a direct way. Combine that with ccp literally erasing a large amount of aurum from the system and I can see why it might go up. Traditionally every time ccp added these new functions for plex the price went up.

  • Dev blog: PLEX Changes On The Way! in EVE Information Center

    Now that the new plex dev blog is out, maybe we can hear how our csm "represented" players when they discussed this with ccp? Can we have minutes that cover this? Perhaps instead of just not doing minutes that cover nda stuff do the minutes but then release them when the info goes public.

    After all I hear having the csm be a sounding board for this new stuff is supposed to be the real value to players. So why can't we read what they said?

  • NDA and in game advantages to csm members. in Council of Stellar Management

    Now that the new plex dev blog is out, maybe we can hear how our csm "represented" players when they discussed this with ccp? Can we have minutes that cover this? Perhaps instead of just not doing minutes that cover nda stuff do the minutes but then release them when the info goes public.

    After all I hear having the csm be a sounding board for this new stuff is supposed to be the real value to players. So why can't we read what they said?

  • Dev blog: PLEX Changes On The Way! in EVE Information Center

    Sullen Decimus wrote:
    Allsales Final wrote:
    Sullen Decimus wrote:
    SIEGE RED wrote:
    Interesting, every bit of market data hints more than strongly at a CSM leak prior to this devblog. It was already weird, yet now it's clear.


    What??

    What do you mean "what"?

    It is all quite odd. Announce a game changing policy on an arbitrary Thursday afternoon and hope the impact is minimized?

    It was leaked.


    What information are you gathering that it was leaked. Point me to the evidence you are referencing.



    It looks like the price of plex went up pretty sharply the last 3 days after holding steady for months.

  • Dev blog: PLEX Changes On The Way! in EVE Information Center

    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Def Monk wrote:
    So, 500 plex works out to be 1hr, 26min, 24 seconds of game time per PLEX. Why not convert them all to 720 units, which will make every plex exactly 1 hour of game time?

    One nice outcome about this is someone can say "Hey, I wanna buy/give 1 week of play time". And they can do that now. But, then the question rises: how many do I need? With the current 500 per plex, that math is complicated and dumb. At 1 hour per, its simple: 24 hours, 7 days, I need 168 PLEX.

    If there's a specific reason for 500, I'd love to know.

    EDIT: My math is assuming 1 PLEX = 30 days.


    This.

    Reducing needless complexity makes sense, adding needless complexity on top of it does not.




    You will only be able to get game time in 30 day chunks.



    That is far from clear from the actual public dev blog. Do you say this based on your csm discussions?

Forum Signature

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815