EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-04-03 19:41
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 18:16
  • Number of Posts: 3,525
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 2,888

FT Diomedes

Security Status 5.0
  • The Graduates Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [Summer] RLML and HML balance pass in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Valkin Mordirc wrote:
    Lidia Caderu wrote:
    Any plans for Rapid Light Rocket Launcher??


    RLML are intended to be able to take on frigates.

    RHML are intended to be able take out Cruisers


    A Rapid light rocket launcher is meant to? Take out Rookie ships?


    Drones?

  • Ship Insurance Change Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Omnathious Deninard wrote:
    The best way to handle the insurance issues is to simply remove insurance from the game.


    This is the best answer.

  • Overload Limiter Script in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lothros Andastar wrote:
    No, stop being stupid.


    This is hard for some people. Impossible for others.

  • Transfer of Expeditions in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The current escalation system gives you a choice between "continue what I was doing" or "go try something new." This removes that choice and the potential time sink associated with that choice. If they did add a feature like this, which would hugely benefit Supercapital ratting pilots, I would hope it came with an accompanying nerf whereby the percentage of escalations dropped significantly. That needs to happen anyway, but this change would warrant an even more massive nerf than is currently needed.

  • [Summer] RLML and HML balance pass in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Romvex wrote:
    ...
    Without the velocity bonus on the Orthrus for example, it can't apply half of its' current damage to an interceptor post-patch. But it CAN still 100-0 most t1 cruisers in a single clip.
    ...


    This doesn't make much sense, the actual velocity of the missile projectile doesn't factor into the applied damage beyond whether or not the missile hits and very few ships are able to outrun a Light Missile while still having a practical combat fit.

    It can be done but the effect of that wouldn't be a 50% reduction in damage.

    I think you may have confused Missile Velocity for Explosion Velocity which are two entirely different and unrelated stats.


    I have watched two combat fit Garmurs try to kill each other and score no hits on each other due to being so much faster than the missiles they were using.

  • A fix for asset protection in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    FT Diomedes wrote:
    Sonya Corvinus wrote:
    Do what you want, but please god don't add asset protection to WHs. Hell, there shouldn't be asset protection anywhere in space.


    Agreed. Asset protection should mean the players haul their own stuff out.


    Which would mean no one would ever actually live in these structures, they'd just keep barely enough ships to be usable in them.

    Besides, in most areas of space Asset Protection only gets you as far as the nearest Station, if that, so you still have to move your stuff a fair ways, and a smart player can figure out where the stuff will end up and camp it out.


    That's the nature of Aegis Sovereignty. You are not meant to build permanent empires protected by your past abilities. You are only as strong as you are today. Thus, you either stay strong or keep it light enough to travel.

    A disciplined player can easily move everything a single character needs in a single capital ship (especially in this Cruiser and below dominated meta).

    In the Eve sandbox, there is only sand. Not cement. Not big rocks. If I build a sand castle full of nice stuff, other people can come kick it over. If they do, they should get my nice stuff unless I move it out.

    For long term storage, not day-to-day use, we have NPC stations. They are in every way less useful than player structures, but you cannot be locked out of them and they cannot be destroyed.

  • A fix for asset protection in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sonya Corvinus wrote:
    Do what you want, but please god don't add asset protection to WHs. Hell, there shouldn't be asset protection anywhere in space.


    Agreed. Asset protection should mean the players haul their own stuff out.

  • A fix for asset protection in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kassimila wrote:
    Pandora Deninard wrote:
    If you want to blow structures up for profit, move to w-space. There is already a place for no asset safety.


    I'm not shocked that someone that lives in Null space is fine with Wormholers getting shafted, and everyone elses stuff (including yours) being fine and dandy. My idea is not to have no asset safety. My idea is to have the funds to get your stuff out of asset safety actually go to the people doing the attacking, not to magical space bank of isk to never be seen again.


    It was the WH community, writ large, that insisted on no asset safety in wormholes.

  • NPC Transport Routes (Production Network) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    No. Hauling your materials is probably the most time consuming aspect of production. Automating it takes away the need to have someone else do it for you or do it yourself. That takes away potential targets in space.

  • [Mini-blog] The Next Steps in Structure Transition in EVE Technology and Research Center

    What about jump clones? What will happen to them?

    Will stuff that is currently locked in an inaccessible station going to become accessible? I think there are still a few stations that were "deadzoned" over the years. That's potentially a huge amount of stuff for a group to recover via asset safety.

  • [Mini-blog] The Next Steps in Structure Transition in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I'm really hoping there is a burst of activity to secure these assets prior to the patch. I just wish it was coming sooner and more suddenly. With such a long lead time, alliances will be able to plan properly and dig in. With a shorter lead time, the land grab would be more frantic. I want something more like the California Gold Rush of 1849 and less like the Google IPO.

  • [Summer] RLML and HML balance pass in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Romvex wrote:
    I'm actually impressed by how bad these changes are. It isn't a good sign when your playerbase can't tell if an idea is legitimate or an april fools joke.

    How do the RLML nerfs address the core problem of the weapon system? They are overpowered because they can kill most cruisers in a single clip while still being able to nuke frigates as per their intended role. This change makes ships with the defined role of anti-tackle useless by forcing them to use unbonused RLML range and missile velocity. Without the velocity bonus on the Orthrus for example, it can't apply half of its' current damage to an interceptor post-patch. But it CAN still 100-0 most t1 cruisers in a single clip.

    The clear solution to this would be to simply leave the hull bonuses (ironically enough the mordu line was introduced to be proficient at using rapid missile systems because of the role bonus) but reduce the clip size of RLML and RHML launchers significantly. Just as tackle frigates can play around the tracking of turret-based anti-tackle, they will be able to play around the reload of an RLML ship if it could only fire 12-15 missiles per clip. They could also use an increase in fitting requirements since they are too low compared to other launcher types of the same size. This fixes the core problem of RLML without simply half-assing a braindead fix and just making the weapons system completely useless.

    But hey HMLs get 5.6% increased damage, that changes everything!


    This is another good post that gets at the core of the problem.

  • [Summer] RLML and HML balance pass in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rapid Lights need to have a significantly smaller clip size and a shorter reload time. Something like 50% clip size, faster ROF, and 20 seconds reload, adjust damage as appropriate (numbers are not exact). Then it truly is a burst of high damage, but without a soul-destroying reload timer. A RLML Caracal in a 1v1 against another properly fit Cruiser would probably come short of killing it before the reload. In a fleet situation against another Cruiser fleet, a RLML Caracal fleet could have some issues due to delayed damage, but would put out high bursts of damage akin to an artillery alpha strike. Basically, it makes the RLML more engaging for the user than it will be soon (shorter reload times), still capable of killing support, but not a really a viable main line doctrine ship or the go-to choice for Cruiser-class weapons.

  • Easier way for logi to get on killmails in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Murkar Omaristos wrote:
    My opinion has long been that logi should show on killmails of friendlies. That means almost no mechanics changes are necessary and logi doens't need any sort of rebalancing - and rather than getting on red KMs, you show on blues. KMs would therefore not show as regular killmails on zKill and such probably but perhaps in another color (say, purple or something) indicating that you performed logistic support rather than applying damage to those friendly ships.

    This would allow you to see really active logi pilots from their KB and distinguish them from people who are mostly flying DPS ships. It also means logi pilots can use logi drones, which is what you should be doing anyways rather than whoring on KMs with your drone bay.


    On the surface, this looks like a good solution. In actuality, you would only be showing the Logistics who were ultimately unsuccessful. If I do my job well as a Logistics pilot, there will not be any friendly loss mails.

    If it could be done in a way that excessive server load was not as issue, I would recommend adding a special effect to the remote armor repair, shield transfer, energy transfer modules, remote sensor boosting, and tracking link modules. When you activate one of those modules on on a target attacking someone, it flags you on that kill mail. It also shows how much EHP you repaired on the friendly ship. Now, if I use neutral Logistics to keep myself alive, it appears on my kill mails. If I want to see who my useful Logistics pilots are, I now have a direct measurement for that effectiveness.

  • Expanded Orehold - Updated in EVE Technology and Research Center

    No.

  • Reverse the Null to Null wormhole nerf in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Some time ago, CCP found it necessary to nerf direct Null to Null connections. They are now relatively rare and do not last for very long.

    This weekend, we had the good fortune to find two direct Null to Null connections to Insmother. While our time zones do not allow us to really match up with our temporary neighbors, it was still very good fun. I wish these connections were more frequent.

    I like the degree of unpredictability and variety they provide.

  • Change Missions to not need Bookmarks or Deadspace in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:

    Overall I just don't think this idea works.


    I agree.

  • [May] CONCORD Aerospace Promotional Ships in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ashlar Vellum wrote:
    it has a bonus that get worse if you are being more aggressive and proactive in a combat ship. It just makes no sense to me.


    You only lose security status for fighting in Low Sec or Empire space. You can be as aggressive as you want in 0.0 or WH space without worrying about security status.

  • [May] CONCORD Aerospace Promotional Ships in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    The security status rep bonus is indeed something quite odd, but it fits wonderfully with a promo ship released by CONCORD. The trick we're using here also gives us the ability to make ships that receive bonuses for having low security status in the future, which may fit well for some kind of pirate ships someday.



    This is the best part. I hope I don't have to wait a decade for this...

  • [Summer] RLML and HML balance pass in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Alderson Point wrote:
    Fozzie, while your intentions are good, you may want to consider some of the ideas put forward.

    1. RLML are the defining choice because HML and HAM launchers are extremely poor at applying damage below battlecruiser sized targets. Improve application for these, and then it becomes a question of players balancing benefits against RLML rather than "always RLML"

    2. Increasing reload time simply makes RLML more unpleasant to use, where reducing both clip size and REDUCING reload time by 5 seconds would make them far more useable WHILST making them less oppressive.

    3. Decreasing range makes RLML less effective against fast moving targets, the real purpose of the weapon system, it simply means fly another ship if you want to fight frigates and interceptors.

    I hope you will take these ideas and comments in board, you have far more experience and knowledge of future developments than most of us, but we do have in game experience, and from that perspective this solution is not addressing our issues.


    These are also good points.

Forum Signature

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.