EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2006-06-11 20:49
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 14:32
  • Number of Posts: 109
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Chaos Incarnate

Security Status 0.0
  • Faceless Logistics Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • POSes: I am a small portion of the community in Council of Stellar Management

    I strongly disagree with the abandonment of the modular POS system, and support this thread in its entirety.

    It's been said by CCP that the development of the modular POS system would only help a few people; POSs impact daily life for thousands of players (to use CCP Seagull's terminology, the 'instigators' and 'enablers', especially the latter, have to deal with them all the time), and it's one of the most ancient and diseased features of EVE. I also think properly reimplemented, they can be an amazing source for the player interaction that CCP says it's striving for.

    It's also been said that it would be too much effort, and I respectfully disagree here as well. I think that you can spread the work out over a long period of time and develop it alongside other features. To quote my suggestion in the minutes blog thread:

    Quote:
    Here's what I'll suggest: let's break things down into meaningful chunks, and make it an 18/24 month project. Build the new POS system slowly as a 'farms and fields' conflict driver in all levels of space; eg, you anchor the new towers at certain beacons/exploration sites to seize control of them and provide resources/abilities, and keep the old system roughly the same until the new system is full featured enough to feasibly replace it.

    Start out doing something simple for summer 2013 (small POSs anchored directly attached to comets, mining for moongoo - no guns or anything too complex, think something like a POCO), but expand iteratively from there over time to new areas while working on reimplementing POS functionality alongside this. Maybe you add med towers, reactors, guns, corp storage, and mooring in winter 2013; maybe large towers, industry, labs, reprocessing, market, contracts, and moon anchoring in summer 2014; and maybe the full system can be replaced by winter 2014 with full docking/captains quarters, forcefields, etc.

    I think this is in line with what CCP Unifex posted in his blog. I think the biggest argument that I have to make here is that this isn't going away. If you don't do this NOW and just kick the can down the road, in two years or five years or ten years the utter misery of the POS system is going to be dragging EVE down. Hell, it already is.

    -Chaos

  • Dev blog: CSM meeting minutes are out in EVE Information Center

    there isn't exactly a thread on the change in direction re:modular POSs and they're spread throughout the minutes, so I'm going to stand here on my soapbox and yell into the wind, and hope someone pays attention

    I feel like CCP have been hinting/teasing/hoping about 'meaningful change' in regards to POSs since...i dunno when. I feel like 'forever', but who really knows. To see CCP back down/wimp out from it again because it's 'too hard' is very distressing. Not to mention the very irritating catch-22 in which CCP refuses to update POSs because 'nobody uses them', yet everyone tells CCP that nobody uses them because they absolutely suck to use. I do somewhat understand the concern that it's too big for one expansion. I get that. You can't spend six months burning on POS code and doing nothing else, either.

    Here's what I'll suggest: let's break things down into meaningful chunks, and make it an 18month/2 year project. Build the new POS system slowly as a 'farms and fields' conflict driver in all levels of space; eg, you anchor the new towers at certain beacons/exploration sites to seize control of them and provide resources/abilities, and keep the old system roughly the same until the new system is full featured enough to feasibly replace it.

    Start out doing something simple for summer 2013 (small POSs anchored directly attached to comets, mining for moongoo - no guns or anything too complex, think something like a POCO), but expand iteratively from there over time to new areas while working on reimplementing POS functionality alongside this. Maybe you add med towers, reactors, guns, corp storage, and mooring in winter 2013; maybe large towers, industry, labs, reprocessing, market, contracts, and moon anchoring in summer 2014; and maybe the full system can be replaced by winter 2014 with full docking/captains quarters, forcefields, etc.

  • Dev blog: The Retribution of Team Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    I like the bounty side of things, but the killright changes just seem very bad. Very strong in some ways, very gameable in others. A list of concerns:

    - There doesn't appear to be anything to prevent you from continually flagging someone with a suspect flag until they die.

    - There's no protections against the criminal purchasing his own killrights with an alt. I know you guys said that you want to do something about this on an iteration, but it should really go in at the same time, even if you have to delay it.

    - As a followup to the above, a criminal is heavily disadvantaged if they don't purchase any freely available killrights against them and use them up immediately. The only value in killrights will likely be selling them back to an alt or corpmate of the criminal in question.

    - I don't know when the killright payment is deducted, but if it's immediately done when you purchase the killrights it's going to be very easy to scam with. Set up an alt with a high bounty, get fake killrights on your alt, sell them for a modest price and sit your alt in a baitship outside jita 4-4. Dock if you ever get a suspect flag.

    Some suggestions:

    - Purchasing killrights or activating them requires a modest CONCORD fee. Maybe 100k or 10% of the purchase, whichever is greater.

    - Do the iteration on killright purchasing before releasing it.

    - deduct isk for killright payments on successful kills, ie when the killright is removed.

    - It might be worth reconsidering the implementation of killrights entirely; perhaps moving them more toward something like the bounty system is going to be. The idea that killrights should be generated or lost when, say, somebody loses a frigate or shuttle makes the system very easy to game. You should tie isk value of losses into it somehow, so that a killright where someone blew up my industrial full of meta2 capital mods is worth more than if I lose my favorite +3 clone in lowsec.

  • Oh, that other MMO has PLEX now too... in EVE Communication Center

    Cipher Jones wrote:
    Well, not exactly, but you can now pay for WoW with DIablo III items, and in a few days, gold. That's gonna hit CCP hard I think.

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?



    So I can grind in one blizzard game to pay for the privilege to grind in another, older blizzard game? Where do i sign up?! P

  • thanks for the presents... err i mean isk in EVE Communication Center

    Lexar Mundi wrote:
    The presents sucked so bad this time around, you should have just had an isk package giving out 17million isk so i didnt have to pay the market tax.


    My heart weeps for you

    no, really

  • No more learning implants! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Takseen wrote:
    Pfft, slippery slope argument.
    Also
    Learning implants are bad because their cost scales poorly with that pilot's combat ability, and peaks relatively early.
    Expensive high sp clone = higher combat ability(90% of the time anyway,)
    Expensive hardwirings = higher combat ability
    Expensive ship and fittings = higher combat ability

    And all but the hardwirings can be changed on the fly whenever you want to go do something risky.


    Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there's no logical connection to the conclusion. If we use the same argument you're using here ("X should be removed because X causes loss which discourages PvP", where X is implant loss) and apply it broadly to eve, we should remove ship loss, skill loss, clone costs, and every source of loss in game. Your argument is, quite simply, loss is bad, therefore remove loss. That you've chosen to limit it to just implants here does not make it invalid to talk about the implications.

    Moreover, the cost scaling is optional. No one's forcing +5s into your head every time you get podded. +4s are dirt cheap and cost less than your average BS. +1/2s are basically nothing, even for a newbie who should have a few million just out of the tutorials.

  • No more learning implants! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Learning implants are fine. Removing them would not create a magical paradise of endless pvp, because people are still in their heart of hearts afraid of losing (and will always be afraid of losing, even when the death penalties are zero).

    Moreover, EVE needs loss. Removing that just steps us ever closer toward the endless field of boring PvPlite MMOs with no redeeming features and no lasting enjoyment.

    Just, no.

  • Thanks CCP! in EVE Gameplay Center

    Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
    Xenuria wrote:
    Two step wrote:
    Yay, the long awaited wormhole forum is here!


    Oh god your face!


    IIRC it was "dude....your face....."


    Confirming.

  • New dev blog: Rebalancing EVE, one ship at a time in EVE Information Center

    I'm guessing the battlecruiser/destroyer skills will be refunded as free sp as a part of this? generally fairly happy with what i can see so far otherwise...

    edit: reading is key, saw it was mentioned in the blog. groovy Cool

  • Eve versus Star Trek in EVE Communication Center

    eve would win, star trek has no logi and no ECM

  • CSM sector representation as an unalienable right in EVE Communication Center

    The Apostle wrote:
    WH is represented by at least one candidate. I'd prefer to see 2 for each sector but CCP have called for and it seems they are convinced that 7 is fine - that's a quorum. My view is that by having 2 candidates, both need to be united on a point so "stand-ins" are automatically opposed if they decide to be stupid about things.


    i was referring to his specific idea that w-space is enough like other forms of space that it doesn't need its own representation. On that front, your idea is fine.
    Quote:


    But on the rest, you need to have a think about that statement. A split vote is a split vote. As it stands you vote for candidate X and he wins by an overall majority.

    With this proposal, if you decide to get your "highsec rep" in then who is going to vote for your "nullsec rep"? More's the point, why would you risk your nullsec candidate to ensure you get in the highsec candidate?

    I've said you'd need to be pretty clever to make such a move and get away with it. Sure, it's open to some fraudulent misadventure but it does make such an act very, very risky.


    You're not understanding. What i'm saying is that there's nothing that prevents CSM candidates from different alliances/powerblocs from coordinating together and running in different categories so as to not directly compete with one another, which pretty much guarantees an entirely nullsec-based CSM (again), despite your attempt to fix it.

    Granted, as it stands it's not very ideal either, but under yours they can just game the system even worse.

  • CSM sector representation as an unalienable right in EVE Communication Center

    Nephilius wrote:
    I've proposed something similiar before, but more along the lines of 3 CSMs for Hisec, Losec, and Nulsec each. Abolish the chair, there should never be one elavted above another. It's a game, not American politics. As for WH space, all CSMs should have a say there, as WH generally abuts all regions and it can be a reflection of all three sections of Eve Space. Equal representation for all if this is implemented, and no one will have any excuse to make future posts on the forums concerning lack of misrepresentation.


    Uhm, no. W-space is its own separate thing, and needs its own separate representation. You aren't qualified to speak on proper development direction regarding w-space if the sum total of your experience was 'i was in a wormhole once' - that's how we get awful ideas like wormhole stabilizers discussed with CCP Roll.

    regardless, this whole thread is a bit silly. All the 'big' powerbloc candidates would just try and work together and run in separate categories to ensure they all got elected anyway, so we'd have the exact same situation as we do now.

  • CCP: WIS FOR US POOR FOLKS STUCK IN SUPERCAPS???!!!!!!!!!!??!!! in EVE Communication Center

    i don't feel the post title contains enough question marks and exclamation points to merit an answer

  • Merry Christmas - Caldari Pony Collectable and Navy Issue Ships in EVE Communication Center

    Ariel Dawn wrote:
    Adult men who watch ponies are scary. They justify it by saying that it has adult jokes/content, but so does Spongebob Squarepants,and you don't see wierd fan art or forum posts for that show.

    You people are weird.


    let go of your hate, bro

    let the magic of friendship into your heart

    ps - caldari pony is awesome

  • Thankyou CCP! I love you :D in EVE Communication Center

    CCP Guard wrote:
    Tenonite wrote:
    It glows blue every 1,000 spins!


    Must....not...troll....NGGH!


    Do it! Give in to the dark side!

    (we have cookies!)

  • session timer still at 30 in EVE Communication Center

    Yes, it's still at thirty seconds for everyone. Too lazy to find the devpost, but i'm pretty sure they said it'll remain at thirty until they're comfortable with the health of TQ post-patch (you may have noticed a spot of lag in Jita, for example) and then they'll lower it

  • EVE Online: Crucible Deployment Information in EVE Information Center

    Alara IonStorm wrote:
    Omar Devone Little wrote:
    Quote:
    The following ships now receive a +10 m/s velocity increase: Enyo, Utu, Brutix, Dominix, Dominix Navy Issue, Megathron, Megathron Federate Issue, Megathron Navy Issue, Lachesis, Astarte, Eos, Helios, Guardian-Vexor, Thorax, Vexor, Vexor Navy Issue, Vigilant, Catalyst, Elite Megathron Duvolle, Arazu, Falcon, Incursus, Maulus, Tristan, Deimos, and Ishtar.

    The following ships now receive a 5% bonus to inertia: Enyo, Utu, Brutix, Dominix, Dominix Navy Issue, Megathron, Megathron Federate Issue, Megathron Navy Issue, Lachesis, Astarte, Eos, Helios, Guardian-Vexor, Thorax, Vexor, Vexor Navy Issue, Vigilant, Catalyst, Elite Megathron Duvolle, Arazu, Falcon, Incursus, Maulus, Tristan, Deimos, Ishtar, Hyperion, Vindicator, Sin, Cormorant, Federation Navy Comet, Kronos, Harpy, Ishkur, Ferox, Rokh, Vulture, Celestis, Exequror Navy Issue, Moa, Atron, Daredevil, Merlin, Adrestia, Eagle, Phobos, Ares, Raptor, Taranis and Eris.


    Wait, what?

    I second this "what?"

    ...What!?


    I'm guessing someone at patchnotesville forgot the name of the t2 megathron produced by duvolle (the Kronos)...or something

  • New dev blog: Re-inventing trails in EVE Information Center

    I'd like to take the time to approve of the return of engine trails and support future improvements/visual upgrades thereof. Cool

  • New dev blog: Starbase tweaks: an update in EVE Information Center

    Where exactly are the blueprints for the fuel blocks going to be seeded?

  • More than 50 saved fittings pls!!! in EVE Communication Center

    afaik it's going up to 100 in a week

    so...yeah