EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2015-10-31 00:02
  • First Forum Visit: 2016-07-27 15:23
  • Number of Posts: 308
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues

Security Status 0.0
  • Hookers N' Blow Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • WTS Kaikka Officer Mods in EVE Marketplace

    500mm for invlun.

  • WTS Domination 10000mn AB - 3.50b in EVE Marketplace

    2.75B

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    What about the industry side of things? Where and how will we see increased costs.

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sapphire Voice wrote:
    Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:
    Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

    There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

    Well done ccp.


    You got payed by CCP or what?))))


    Not really I just enjoy the salt and tears when they nerf stuff. The first round of rorqual nerfs everyone was up in arms threatening to sell all their rorquals, and unsub accounts. Its a big joke.

    Everyone will calm down in a week go back to whatever they were doing and adjust.

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Xuan Menzoberanza wrote:
    Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:
    Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

    There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

    Well done ccp.



    AFK ?? PASSIVE INCOME on Carrier and Super??

    Are you mad or something ?


    Passive = Moon Income

    Mining/Rating in Carriers is AFK if you can multibox 5 rorquals/carriers

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

    There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

    Well done ccp.

  • [Summer] Pirate Battleship Cost Intervention in EVE Technology and Research Center

    SurrenderMonkey wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    In June we are starting to address the supply of pirate battleship BPCs, with moderate changes to the chance of escalations spawning from the most popular high-end anomalies and larger changes to the drop rates of the BPCs themselves from quite a few NPCs.


    This would also impact the availability of deadspace modules.

    Is this intended (or, at least, considered to be acceptable collateral damage)? Or will drop rates for the mods be adjusted to compensate?


    Given how cheap deadspace/faction modules are hopefully its intended they are all wayyyy too cheap.

  • [Summer] Pirate Battleship Cost Intervention in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rarilmar wrote:
    This should have been done by silently dropping the rates every month for about 3-6 months instead of making this announcement that nuked the market in an hour.


    This is a really good point. CSM's seems to get a lot of knowledge ahead of changes, so whoever rush logins first or is a csm gets free isk.

    Probably one of the best posts in the thread.

  • [Summer] Pirate Battleship Cost Intervention in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Odelll wrote:
    Hell CCP, why not just remove all PvE content from the game entirely and just sell people ISK?
    I know, how about we use Plex as ammunition too! That will generate the sales your aiming for.

    Or, you know, how about you expand on your existing game and generate new intresting content that gets your playerbase moving around in space again instead of essentially removing/constricting/nerfing consistantly the few things that people still actually login for?

    Seriously, stop removing content from this content starved game.


    Its not their fault the game is content starved is the player bases fault. People are risk averse because they dont want to lose ships or eff up their killboards. Everyone just wants to whore and accumulate wealth.

    Thats called human nature, ccp couldnt do **** to fix it.


  • [Summer] Pirate Battleship Cost Intervention in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Logan Jakal wrote:
    Smart, how to stealthy nerf ratting income.


    Agreed. In general almost everything in the game is over farmed.

  • WTB BPCs for Dark Blood Capital modules in EVE Marketplace

    Ive got 2x Dark Blood Capital Neutralizer Modules if you dont get the BPCs you were looking for.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Novor Drethan wrote:
    Noxisia Arkana wrote:
    Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete.

    And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing.

    It shouldn't be CCP's job to make sure the players have ships that do everything they want. It's the players who need to adapt.

    I would love if my Marauder had better resists or the ability to use a MJD when in Bastion, but CCP has rejected both those things. Why? Well, for balance.

    I don't believe a ship that can fit a covert cloak, interdiction nullification, and 6 bonused turrets/launchers is balanced. There's a reason Recon Ships don't have spectacular DPS and tank. There's a reason they don't have interdiction nullification. There's a reason Black Ops Battleships can't fit covert cloaks.

    All of that reasoning goes out the window with T3Cs though. It's as though every other ship in the game is balanced by one standard while T3Cs are balanced by another, and it certainly doesn't help that so many players support that.

    1. T3Cs are Cruisers. They are not Battlecruisers. They are not Battleships.
    2. Being T3 does not justify them being fundamentally broken in terms of balance. T3Ds were just rebalanced by CCP, and they seem to be in a good place. They are very much Destroyer hulls. They don't compete all that much with Cruisers, and they certainly don't compete with Battlecruisers. T3Cs should be very much the same, relative to their hull size.
    3. Cost is not a proper balancing tool when used as an excuse to try and justify an unbalanced ship. We know this. Marauders are 10x as much as T1 Battleships, but CCP refuses to give them T2 resists -- they cost as much as Dreadnaughts, but don't perform anywhere near the same level. The same should be true of T3Cs. You shouldn't be paying all that extra isk for a brokenly powerful ship. You should be paying that isk for a ship that's versatile and can adapt to many different roles -- unlike T2 ships, which are limited to specific roles.

    This really all seems like common sense, but T3Cs have been so strong for so long that people simply aren't willing to admit that they need a much more extensive nerf than we're currently seeing. I think that this should be the goal.


    Good post, T3D's are in a good spot people are still using them all but none are really that oppressive.

  • wts officier setele's modified magnetic field stabilizer in EVE Marketplace

    4b

  • WTS Selynne, Hakim & Mizuro Mods in EVE Marketplace

    3.5B for both gyro's

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Alux Vemane wrote:
    Healthy economy just for CCP's profits. X


    Must be a european socialist.

    Yes more money for CCP. They run a business, they have employee's to pay, they have costs, they have to make a profit. If every player in the game paid for their subscriptions with ISK how would these people feed their families?

    While you are at it can tweak drop rates on faction modules. In some cases faction modules are cheaper than T2 modules which seems excessive. Maybe balance it with more drops of more expensive modules.

    Also where are the QOL/Tiericde etc you've announced 5x already.

    Good to see CCP watching these things and balancing them.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Jeremiah Saken wrote:
    [quote=Novor Drethan][quote=Jeremiah Saken]Your own words:

    I have no idea what you are writing about. You want a premium price for a hull that is worse than T2 but have some abilities that their counterparts won't have (interdiction nullifiing I presume). Did you ever bother to read proposed changes to T3C, because I don't think so. Tank resists will be nerfed below T2, nullifing sub will have serious drawbacks, cloak will have less than average tank. The only thing that may be usefull is interdiction nullifing subsystem to travel.
    Nobody will fly a hull that will cost fitting+spare subsystems = rook+basilisk+nighthawk+cerberus. That will be 1,5 bil ISK and it's not guarantee that you'll use all that stuff. It won't be worth it. The fact you think T3 are so versatible or will be so shows you have very to none experience to them.


    I think you guys are getting off topic, or a little extreme. Nobody is suggesting T3C's should be 1.5B a pop. What most people are saying or implying is they should be a bit more expensive.

    Currently they cost approximately: 115mm for the hull and 140mm for the subsystems, so lets call it 250mm.

    My read is most people think we should drop the SP loss and increase the upfront cost, i would assume to the tune of 375mm-500mm for the hull plus subsystems.

    To me that kinda makes sense. Especially since the rigs can be removed and swapped. (they only are destroyed on death) and especially since we are going from 5 to 4 subsystems, if prices stay the same we are talking a decrease in the cost by 1 subsystem.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Novor Drethan wrote:
    Jeremiah Saken wrote:
    We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap.
    As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf.

    SP loss only matters if you lose the ship. Do everything right and the hull is relatively cheap for what it's capable of doing. The upfront cost should be higher.

    SP loss also unfairly hurts newer players. Older players who typically have most of the skills they want trained up don't have to sacrifice anything to train their subsystem skills back up, but newer players have to choose between the subsystems or other important skills they haven't trained yet.

    The decreased lock range isn't that big of a deal if you're being bridged in by a Blops to gank a target, which is what the cloaked + nullified + offensive T3Cs are going to be doing. The decreased agility and increased signature radius don't matter if you fit warp core stabs in your lows when traveling -- again, something that isn't an issue if you're being bridged by Blops anyway.

    I was going to suggest an increased delay in lock time after decloaking, but even that doesn't matter if the target is already pointed by a cloaked T3C that's fit for heavy tackle.


    Good points. Personally I dont see why there is SP loss, just make it a higher up front cost. The SP thing is a legacy thing they should get rid of.


  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mr Floydy wrote:
    Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

    Personally, IF and only IF it improves performance I would say just use one fixed art model for each T3C and dont bother having the model change for every system configuration.

    95% of the player base doesnt zoom in on a t3 to admire the different system combos but 100% of the player base notices lag and tidi.


    I doubt that 95% has any basis in fact. Regardless, I would be surprised if T3s made any notable contribution to lag and tidi than many other things - certain drones/missiles/bubbles will all be far bigger contributers.

    Not to mention the idea of completely removing the unique and interesting art side of things would completely remove the gameplay of trying to work out what fits you could be fighting against from the look of the hulls. If you've never done that I'm going to assume you've never really hunted solo T3s / done much small scale pvp with them.


    I feel you, if it doesnt improve performance of the game then it doesnt matter, but I thought I read somewhere that the subsystems add to the lag problems. Could be wrong.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mr Floydy wrote:
    A question triggered by this:

    From the Focus Group chat logs... wrote:

    [21:12] frsd: Is there anything thats stopping 4 different subsystems for offensive?
    [21:12] frsd: it doesn't need to be all the same
    [21:12] ccp_fozzie: yes, we can't support that on our end
    [21:13] ccp_fozzie: an art guy would come over to my desk and knock me out with one of those expensive digital drawing tablets


    Currently we've got 4 subsystem choices for each type, can you expand on why there's a limitation for only 3 now?
    Are the ships getting a complete remodel from scratch, or are you just binning off certain subsystems and now only have the art budget to maintain 3 of each of the 4 subsystems?

    I'm really hoping we're not going to lose out on some of the more distinct and pretty subsystem combos!

    I'd love to comment more on the balance side of things, but don't think there is enough of a full picture for it right now. Some of the ideas and changes to the subsystems sound promising though.


    Personally, IF and only IF it improves performance I would say just use one fixed art model for each T3C and dont bother having the model change for every system configuration.

    95% of the player base doesnt zoom in on a t3 to admire the different system combos but 100% of the player base notices lag and tidi.


  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    naed21 wrote:
    "Increase cost slightly"

    Is this form the new item being added to the hull manf requirements?

    I was hoping the invension side could be looked at as well. If I'm understanding this correctly, this item is being used to put some cost difference into the hulls like how the racial Hybrid Tech Decryptors used to. Except it's being done on building side instead of invension. Which imo is where the changes need to be made.

    Back when hybrid tech decryptors were a thing, the caldari racial variant was so expensive it proped up the intact and malf relic prices because of how inefficient using wrecked relics were. With the rest of the races bouncing between malf and wrecked.

    Removing the decryptors made all four T3s cost the same to invent. Then later (or was it at the same time?) we got to choose the outcome of our invension and that basically buffed invension chance by 200% (1/4 chance of what you wanted to 1/1). This is also ignoring the success boosting decryptors we get to use now as well.

    So what I'd like to see is Hybrid Tech Decryptors added back into sleeper data sites (Giving them back the only drop that was worth anything) and then reducing the invension chance by 50% (or 75% if you want to go back to how relics used to be priced).

    Then maybe I won't have to tell people that run relic/data sleeper sites that the hackable cans are a waste of time.


    The same thing would be accomplished if they increase the value of the subsystems datacores(increased usage/decreased drops), from currently 5k isk (essentially zero)