EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2013-11-22 14:25
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-09-29 05:52
  • Number of Posts: 104
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 40

Dictateur Imperator

Security Status 4.8
  • Ab origine fidelis Member since
  • Get Off My Lawn Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Dictateur Imperator wrote:
    Legal procedure is starting for the game accessibility change.
    We will see.


    Keep us posted on your legal battle about a single feature in a game no longer being as accessible as it used to be. I really want to hear about it.


    In fact no the first time CCP have legal problem... but i, general they finish per negociate when they understand it's not a joke or a fake .

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Problem Addict wrote:
    OK really smart people.
    Tell your fighters to orbit the next target BEFORE your current target explodes.

    They will still fire upon the current target until it explodes and will move onto the next designated "orbit" which you can then begin firing upon.

    This will result in non-stop fightermovement and non-stop application of fighter DPS.

    #getgood



    You are really smart ... some people can't for RL reason. So be very smart and read all other people beofre post.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Legal procedure is starting for the game accessibility change.
    We will see.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Dictateur Imperator wrote:
    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Vladebor wrote:
    Best solution imo for capital ratting would be to simply add new anomaly type (or tweak sanctums) so they have less small ships and have more capital ships. It does not even need to be worth much more income per tick than havens now - just require less clicking overall because the way it is now is really too much. Many people are playing eve because it does not require so many clicking and running around like other games.
    Not to mention that would be fun to have more really big ship fights - I came to this game for this.


    If it's too much clicking, you can always do something else than carrier/super ratting...


    Yes but if we want play game with you must do a lot of apm we don"t play to eve.
    We we have sign for play we have sign for an other accessibility of game. So if ccp want to change it they can ... they mist paid (and not only give back money of time who yu have on account).


    What breach of contract have they done for you to think you should get reimbursement from them?


    Not contract, but legal, change game accessibility is a breach in law in near all country. Exemple for you to understand better : sell car to people who don"t have leg ... and after 3 month said "finnally no we change you must have leg for this car".
    It 's a terrible exemple, but at basis this kind of law is for this thing.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Vladebor wrote:
    Best solution imo for capital ratting would be to simply add new anomaly type (or tweak sanctums) so they have less small ships and have more capital ships. It does not even need to be worth much more income per tick than havens now - just require less clicking overall because the way it is now is really too much. Many people are playing eve because it does not require so many clicking and running around like other games.
    Not to mention that would be fun to have more really big ship fights - I came to this game for this.


    If it's too much clicking, you can always do something else than carrier/super ratting...


    Yes but if we want play game with you must do a lot of apm we don"t play to eve.
    We we have sign for play we have sign for an other accessibility of game. So if ccp want to change it they can ... they mist paid (and not only give back money of time who yu have on account).

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    March rabbit wrote:
    Tested this new patch with my supercarrier.

    Nothing really changed. And it was expected more or less having 1 Haven being done in 5:30. Most of the time NPC targeted my fighters but it is too fast for them to do any significant damage anyway.

    So this change mainly targeted carrier pilots. And i'm still not convinced that they needed it What?


    Doesn't seem to have even affected Carriers much beyond multi-box/AFK capability. So far I've seen no change from people ratting Blood Raiders, Sansha, Guristas, Rogue Drones, and Serpentis. Haven't been able to find a video or person who does Angels though and there's been some concern raised over their TPs and Webs. If anyone has a video with the changes I'm curious if the concerns with Angels have been as overblown as those with other factions.


    I'm mono account, and i can't often use my 2 hand for some IRL problem. I'm affect. And before patch you can't afk carrier so stop think people want AFK. But befor epatch yes you can give order to you're fighter to attack nex target before they die, or you can have 1 000 ms ping without loose 2 fighter.

    When we read you we understand : you don't hvae play carrier before update and not after.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Darkligh 81 wrote:
    Hi All

    Telling your fighters to orbit does work. Exactly the same as I always ran them, I have run Havens/Sanctums today others were loosing fighters in.

    Tell the fighters to orbit your next target just before your fighters cycle the killing blow. When a new group spawns immediatley tell them to orbit your first target (or a target, doesn't matter) then lock the targets while they are on their way to the new spawn.

    Don't wait for them to kill the target then tell them to orbit, or lock a target and then orbit, by then it's too late. Orbit first.

    If you still struggle throw in a Capital drone durability rig or 2 for a bit of extra hp (also helps in case of a DC) Yes you warp slower then if you were running a max tick fit but you don't loose fighters.

    I play with a very bad connection ( around 1000ms-2000ms latency) and if I can keep my fighters alive you should be able to as well.

    Hope that helps.


    Same latency they have alpha my fighter (and i have drone durability rigs + thanatos perfect).

    And when you play only with mouse: they kill fighter to.

    CCP must correct beug before patch something.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    [quote=Dictateur Imperator]Not for nerfing, but to change accebility you can. You need to have a great apm ... when you have signe to the game need only medium.
    If you can"t use you're 2 hand to play with keyboard for any reason : It's a consumer act violation in a lot of country.



    Um... this is flatly false, even I know enough law to know that.

    If you're disabled you have no reasonable expectation to be able to play a game at the same level as someone with two functioning hands and the same goes for any other disability. If we were to follow your issue here to its logical conclusion then FPS games would also need to accommodate one-handed players, blind players, and all sorts of other things that it's simply ridiculous to expect them to accommodate without dumbing down the game to the point of removing all challenge from it.

    I'm all for more discussion on these changes, preferably with examples, but this line of argument is just ridiculous.[/quote

    If you sell a blind people comptaible game and change after ... you are against consumer act.
    Here it's same in fact. You muste never you're accessibility. And if you want you must paid the price .

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Dictateur Imperator wrote:
    Not for nerfing, but to change accebility you can. You need to have a great apm ... when you have signe to the game need only medium.
    If you can"t use you're 2 hand to play with keyboard for any reason : It's a consumer act violation in a lot of country.



    Um... this is flatly false, even I know enough law to know that.

    If you're disabled you have no reasonable expectation to be able to play a game at the same level as someone with two functioning hands and the same goes for any other disability. If we were to follow your issue here to its logical conclusion then FPS games would also need to accommodate one-handed players, blind players, and all sorts of other things that it's simply ridiculous to expect them to accommodate without dumbing down the game to the point of removing all challenge from it.

    I'm all for more discussion on these changes, preferably with examples, but this line of argument is just ridiculous.


    When you sign a contract with a companie for a service, they can change some rules of the service if they 're eula said they can. BUT if the accesibility of the service change due to this it's against consumer act.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Black Salt wrote:
    Gadzooki wrote:



    Ahh Black salt, the saltiest salt of all.

    threaten legal action - check
    threaten to cancel account - check
    Offer up sound changes that will go unnoticed because of the tone of your first paragraph - check

    Better check the salt levels in the ocean before we proceed


    Perhaps I made this character for the specific reasons of being salty on forums ~

    Or perhaps it's one lucky twist of fate!

    And I don't make threats, simply made note of the fact that it may be a violation of existing consumer acts, and with respect to the account not being sub'd, it's not a threat if I've already cancelled it and started using my time on other games already.

    And if people wish to ignore the sound suggestion to balance, then that's fine but anyone who is looking at forums for feedback should fully expect to get the following:

    1) Salt
    2) Trolls

    and probably needs to be able to still read comments objectively.

    P.S. I'd have described Black Salt as the Edgiest of Salts but


    Do you really think you have any legal protection against CCP nerfing your pixel spaceship? If it was the case, every single MMO designer would be in court every single patches for having nerfed someone's pixels. Get real...


    Not for nerfing, but to change accebility you can. You need to have a great apm ... when you have signe to the game need only medium.
    If you can"t use you're 2 hand to play with keyboard for any reason : It's a consumer act violation in a lot of country.

  • Blog de dév : Changements apportés au système de PLEX in Forum français

    CCP Phantom wrote:


    Q : Pourquoi convertissez-vous les soldes d’Aurum supérieurs à 1 000 unités ?
    A : Une grande partie des réserves totales d’Aurum sont de petits soldes provenant d’anciens cadeaux oubliés, et le fait de ne pas les convertir permet de diminuer le risque de surapprovisionnement du marché du PLEX.


    C'est pas très licite cela dans pas mal de pays... Vous allez remboursser en devise dans la vraie vie sonnante et trébuchante du coup ?

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Martin Vanzyl wrote:
    Somebody mentioned the latest economic report as a reason for the carrier fighter nerf, and I rarely pay attention to those economic reports, but my interest was peaked. Two clicks later and I'm staring at the Isk Sink and Faucet's graph and
    WTF?!Shockedhttps://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Feb_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.png

    Something, starting in mid April 2016 has caused Bounty Payouts to absolutely shoot into the stratosphere! https://updates.eveonline.com/date/2016-04-27/

    The Citadel/Caps expansion.

    Between then and now Bounty Payout has gone from a level of 1Tril Isk to peaking in Mid February 2017 at 2.2 TRILLION ISK, whilst the Sinks barely changed at all.

    Its NOT a good idea to just INJECT that amount of money into your economy to that extent that quickly. That leads to currency devaluation and money oversupply. Google a bit to see why that's BAD.

    CCP can see what ship/activity is earning these the most, I assume. So if this is what they have to do to keep EVE's economy afloat... and by extension, the game going, which puts food on their tables, keeps the lights on, by all means.







    And you know what ? With this expension the number of player in game have drastically augmented during the same period...

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Change of game accessibility.
    Time to attack CCP in justice. (i said game accessibility, now you must micro manage with youre 2 hand, to don't loose foghter, so people who can't are penalised... and it's was not the case whe i have register to the game).

    Game accessibility change can not be cover per you're EULA, beacause law of a lot of country in the world manage this.


    So plan to make CCP read feedback:
    - Support for each fighter lost due to "stop movement" beacasue they're own dev aprove it's not normal.
    - Attack in justice if you're law permit to attack for game accessibility change.
    -During fan fest all player must ask : Carrier Change ?Best Change?

    If all player do this CCP will back to the old system in few hours.


  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    In fact "solution" is to order to you're fighter to orbit an item when they end to kill.

    Problem : BAd connexion with a suddently ping => bye to you're fighter.
    You can't play with you're 2 hand? You will have not time to make they orbit and fire before loose one.

    It"s not a problem of the nerf, it become a problem of game accessibility.


    So true question is : Why CCP decide to take sanction against player with the badest connexion ?
    Why CCP decide to destroy content ?(less carrier in space, less people who farm, less newbro who salvage, less target for roammer ... less content).
    Why CCP decide to make decision to take sanction against people who can't use 2 hand to play?

    CCP don't reed here, maybe after update contact press of you're country and explain to they a game company take sanction against people in fonction of they're connexion/health... And see how many time before CCP decide to answer by allow to fighter to orbit wreck when they kill and not to stop.

  • [March] Character's Total Net Worth estimation in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Nice

    Can we have the same for corporation asset ?

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    This post need an answer of a dev. (i don't care of player answer).

    1)When you give a lot of order you're squad stop : actually not a big deal, sometimes lost 1 fighter (1 for maybe 50 ano). After update maybe if it's 1 per anomaly it will be a big problem.
    2) If you're connection have some latency (like ping to 2000 -3000 ms) and go back to normal , or a avearage ping of 500 ms ... You will loose fighter. Ping could come from player... and you're infrastructure => >Actually you do'nt loose fighter or mayber one for X anomaly.
    3)if you don't play with keyboard shortcut for medical reason for exemple ... you can't use you're carrier anymore with a normal mouse. Or if you play on trackpad same problem. Actuallly you can , after you will loose free fighter.


    So let me be clear : 1) Beug issue to solve, tou're problem we can write to support for each time it will happen.
    2) Same as 1, unless you can proof it's the player connexion who lag (not the FAI, THE PLAYER connexion), beacause yes in some country when the player have sign to you're game he agree CGU... and law of his country. You could have legal issue, so prepare to reimburse.
    3) Legal issue if you want more detail and you are CCP employee pm me.

    So i repeat before change fighter, solve problem 1, after make fighter auto orbit when they kill, and after make you're actual change.

    Thank.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Questions & Answers

    Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE?
    A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.

    Q:Could the fighter UI show the HP of the damaged fighter?
    A: This won't be coming in March, but it is something we're looking into! :)

    Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target!
    A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.




    Step 1 : Change the behaviour of fighter when they kill a npc.
    Step 2: Change the fact sometimes you're fighter pilot don't want to move during 10 secondes with error message.

    Step3 : Now you can make you're change.


    But make step before 2 other, you will just make carrier useless in pve.

  • CCP, save EVE in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Teddy KGB wrote:

    - remove local in null-sec / low-sec
    - remove tactical destroyers at all (this is the dumbest ship in EVE ever)
    - remove anomalies like haven, sanctum, etc. resp in sov space by military hub
    - remove rapid launchers or nurf it
    - change cyno mechanics
    - replace NPC bounty with loot only except belts and mission rewards
    - double up the mineral cost of capital ships
    - boost Battleships
    - rebalance T3 cruisers closer to T2 cruisers (their main distinction must be their flexibility but not overwhelming parameters)
    - replace armor/shield repair bonus with ammount bonus for subcapital ships




    Remove local , and only loot no bounty => go to wh.
    Remove anomalie => Remove player who live in 0.0 and farm ... nice to save eve
    i can continue but you're post is like " i can't kill people, and they make money, please CCP nerf all and you will save MY game".

    Sorry for you if you done all this change you just kill eve.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Dictateur Imperator wrote:
    Sonya Corvinus wrote:
    Lucien Visteen wrote:
    I agree with you on this.Smile
    What I didn't agree with is what I called you out on. Saying (in a thread that is over 300 pages long, and still going strong) that AFK cloaking is no big deal, is in my opinion extremely counterporductive. And I also feel very strongly for this topic, so it frustrates me when players do that.


    But it really isn't a big deal. AFK cloaking is really only done in sov null, and the only people who complain about it are those who don't watch intel, aren't in fleets and aren't on comms. A multi-billion ISK kill of a BLOPS is something anyone would like to get, and anyone in a response/home defense fleet gets that kill if they get dropped.

    I dislike this thread simply because it's not "cloaking vs not cloaking", it's "easy mode null vs having to work as a team"



    Problem is : when they use this to make moral harassement.
    And it's not be on com or not : Maintain a pvp fleet to support miner/pve player all the time is just boring for 1 people when you do'n know when he can cyno reinforcement.
    Solve: Remove perma cloack. Choose how, just remove it :)


    No.

    Cloaking ships already are weaker than other ships in their class....as it should be. Adding fuel, cap drain, etc. weakens them even further....simply for your benefit. You have made no case for why this should be the case. And no harassment (moral or immoral) is not valid as it is not harassment. The silliness of that claim is obvious. Clearly you do not think my shooting your ship is harassment, but me not shooting you and being a boogie man in local is harassment?

    Now, removing AFK cloaking and removing the indestructible nature of local--i.e. moving intel to an anchorable structure that lets you do things to find out who is in your system and possible where they are, fine.

    But they both must go.


    I disagree if you want to change nature of local remove nature OF ALL intel : farm/mining/jump/ect ... not only local. And reminber if you destroy local you kill the game. See how many people want to live in WH, and how many in 0.0. So yes you can deploy some "counter" to local only and only if you deploy counter to ALL intel (and remove all kind of clocking you don't need cloacking if no local if we read you, and yes remove totally cloack a lot of people will cry).

    And yes stay at one point only to explain to people if they play you will kill it when YOU want, and they have 0 counter. It could be harassement. And in fact it is, read people who use cloack to disrupt people " we make harassement on this system to shut down ADM/people/ect.." . Harassement if you have a counter it's a game mechanic. If not it's just harassement and in a lot of country it's just illegal.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
    See KB people are catch by being AFK.
    "law" has got to be the best one I've heard yet.
    Fuel? See page #1 in the thread.

    You can do better.

    Edit: by the way ... you can't both agree people aren't getting caught by cloaky hunters and go ahead and say they're having a psychological effect anyway. I know how ratters and miners die-- because whenever we catch one, it doesn't even more or deploy drones. THEY are being AFK; and complain about another AFK preventing them from going AFK. lolwut?



    Fuel is an exemple of emergency change. An exemple; because CCP haven't deploy OA . Or a pos module if you want.

    Problem is when they stop to be AFK. And don't said: it's counter to perfect intel , it"s false, it they who have perfect intel , not people who are in the system for live. (you have all information in relation with ADM, number of jump, you can use d-scan cloack and see if you're opponent do something he can't know if you does something). And a lot of people use it only to make moral harassement (read some bio/description in game of people homage afk clocking)