EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2013-01-30 22:40
  • First Forum Visit: 2013-05-14 18:27
  • Number of Posts: 91
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Fifth Blade

Security Status -1.5
  • Jump Drive Appreciation Society Member since
  • Jump Drive Appreciation Alliance Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Always Showing Ship Bracket Text Option in EVE Communication Center

    While we're on the subject of ship labels, can we get the Floating Combat Text to ignore line breaks in ship labels?
    It would enable us to have 2+ line ship labels without breaking the floating combat text formatting completely.

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

    Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

    besides that extreme is just wrong you can shut off your mwd when you see fighters headed in your direction and tank them relatively well with no prop mod (particularly with logi) only time this is a problem is if you are all anchored on one guy in one spot and the entire fleet has to shut off their mod but that avoidable with better fleet tactics.
    Everything you have posted here is wrong. Clearly you have never used a carrier or mwd cruiser against a carrier.

    This is why - a 1 omni, 3 DDA, 2 FSU Nid does:
    1700+ dps to an mwding cynabal
    1500+ dps to a (prop off) cynabal
    334 dps to a 100mn AB cynabal

    Anchoring doesn't apply since we don't do that.
    At least check yourself in pyfa before making ignorant comments in future.

    Edit: All numbers before links, snakes or heat. T2 fits.

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

    Miyamoto Uroki wrote:
    Excellent change for the signature changes for fighters. Now if you could make them a little less opressive in terms of applying dps to mwding cruisers? that would bring them back into balance imho
    Honestly it's the extremes which are the problem.

    They need to be significantly less oppressive to mwd cruisers (bc/bs are obviously in a worse spot still), and more oppressive to 100mn ab cruisers. Otherwise we'll be flying them until the end of time, as the only viable option. Very boring. No diversity at all.

    an example depending on which prop mod i use on my cruiser:
    I can choose to either be 1-2 shot (mwd) or
    I can choose to infinitely tank 3 squadrons (actually more) with no problem at all.

    They should not counter, nor be countered so absolutely.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Excavator Drones:
    We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy.

    While I appreciate the attempt, I believe it may be a bit late for that:
    Trit: https://i.imgur.com/FfWruzm.png
    Pyrite: https://i.imgur.com/def1XnE.png
    Nox: https://i.imgur.com/l3JzYPr.png

    Hel build cost: https://i.imgur.com/d2aupwN.png
    This has created a huge increase in super production.

    What are your thoughts on the massively accelerated super/titan proliferation?

    Do you have any plans to address this problem of proliferation going forward? (now that sp is easily bought and available characters for sale are no longer a limitation).
    Or will we inevitably move to the situation where faction supers are standard fare, much like with subcaps?

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Focused Warp Scrambling Script in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Lucy Callagan wrote:
    I like how the people complaining about this pretty much have as much knowledge about small gang as a Malian Camel breeder about sailing.

    On the other side are the "experts" who think HICs cannot be countered. Because jams are kind of a religious taboo for them.

    I love these responses because they apply to no one. Lucy does the same thing we do. Damp it, or use a prop mod unaffected by scrams. The only effect it has on us is to make us fly more oppressive ships to kill you with.

    A little help for your future attempts at making a coherent argument on the subject - damps are much more effective than jams ;)

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Focused Warp Scrambling Script in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mizhir wrote:
    Hans Downherpantz wrote:
    brawling dies again


    People kite because they don't want to get blobbed to oblivion. It allows them to disengage when the enemy throws a couple of caps after a handful of subcaps.

    Increasingly relevant when the build cost of supers has decreased 4b in the last month (and will likely drop another 4b) - https://i.imgur.com/d2aupwN.png

    Spot the date of the rorqual change - https://i.imgur.com/FfWruzm.png


    Henry Plantgenet wrote:
    Those who say this only nerfs brawlers are delusional.

    Indeed, but not for the reason you suggest. If you kite you can position yourself properly on grid. Most people have no idea how to do this, and we'll pick off half of their fleet. Hics are slow and cannot keep up with most ships, they usually get left behind. Either that or we'll just overprop and ignore them completely.

    Brawlers on the other hand? You had no hope of escaping a hic. They simply shut you down out of heavy neut range, out of web/grapple range, no ability to mjd and usually unable to apply damage to them effectively at that range. You would never catch them.

    This change helps brawling quite a bit. HICs will now be in heavy neut and extreme grapple range while scramming you rather than completely out of danger. 10/10.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Focused Warp Scrambling Script in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ted McManfist wrote:
    Did the 5,000 m/sec kiting people cry too loud?

    Nope. We all just used 100mn and were able to ignore them completely. Which broke the game balance even more until it was fixed. Smart players will always find the most optimal solution.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Focused Warp Scrambling Script in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Great change. At first glance, the numbers look reasonable for counterplay on both sides, also.

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Much shorter expiry times would be an improvement (4-6h). So that people can still use them strategically, but it would prevent renters from bubbling each of their gates once every day (which results in no effective change).

    Surgical bubbles could use a rework to be made useful, also. If you really wan't to disrupt nullification....

  • [Ascension] Capital Ship and Upwell Structure Blueprint Adjustments in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Would be nice if some of the Citadel / Engineering Array Blueprints could benefit from ME research. The current design means that only the largest variants benefit outside of rapid equipment array build times with 5 ME (Which will obviously be removed with poses).

    By making ME research pointless you remove a whole style of long-term research and investment which makes the player market, and potential resale of them very minimal. Please rethink this decision.

  • 118.9 - Issues Thread (PC) in EVE Information Center

    CCP Habakuk wrote:
    According to all our available design+data (I also checked on old test servers) there should only be 2 high-sec statics in Thera. There is a possibility that a third one might have existed for some time due to a bug, but I have no evidence for this.

    Just to be 100% clear:
    You are saying that the third highsec static (which in line with the third low and null statics) that has existed for the entire time I have lived here (at least one year) and from what others have experienced - has always existed - was due to an unfixed bug?

  • CSV dump of all PVP kills between Mar 1-Apr 4 in EVE Information Center

    Alex Zalbazar wrote:
    Would you guys be willing to do this same sort of ranking list, but with weighting for number of active pilots?

    Would be a closer measure of individual activity, I think.

    Taken from someone else on reddit:

    Quote:
    Hi, I actually did a comparison of Kills vs. Members of the top 15 listed, here are the top ten.

    1. G0P-ST0P - 4753 kills, 69 members, 68.88 kills per
    2. Faceless Ronins - 1683 kills, 46 members, 36.59 kills per
    3. The Conference Elite - 4289 kills, 157 members, 27.31 kills per
    4. Rapid Withdrawal - 5168 kills, 205 members, 25.21 kills per
    5. Jump Drive Appreciation Society - 2254 kills, 111 members, 20.31 kills per
    6. The Tuskers - 1894 kills, 100 members, 18.94 kills per
    7. Snigwaffe - 3644 kills, 230 members, 15.84 kills per
    8. Stimulus - 1993 kills, 147 members, 13.56 kills per
    9. Brave Newbies - 2388 kills, 1647 members, 1.45 kills per
    10. Dreddit - 3223 kills, 2578 members, 1.25 kills per.

    And a description of each:
    Quote:

    1. PIRAT - Highsec wardeccers camping the amarr undock
    2. Faceless Ronins - N-RAEL Gatecampers
    3. CODE. - Highsec suicide ganking smartbombing catalysts
    4. Rapid Withdrawal - (lowsec - Galmil FW) small gang pvp around the Black Rise / Citadel area
    5. NOG8S - Therabois, (mostly null) small gang pvp, blops
    6. Tuskers - (lowsec) small gang pvp
    7. Waffles - Snigg feeder corp, small-mid scale (mostly lowsec) pvp, focus on activity
    8. Stimulus - Rote Kapelle, (nullsec) small gang pvp
    9. Brave Newbies - mid-scale fleets as part of the querious thunderdome
    10. Test Alliance Please Ignore - large null warfare

  • CSV dump of all PVP kills between Mar 1-Apr 4 in EVE Information Center

    Aaron Honk wrote:
    Talon White wrote:
    Using a pivot table we (RvB) calculated the total number of kill mails (ACTUAL KILLS) per corporation over the period of Mar 1-Apr 4.

    The 'Top 30' result

    1 Pandemic Horde Inc. 5896
    2 Rapid Withdrawal 5168
    3 G0P-ST0P 4753
    4 The Conference Elite 4289
    5 SniggWaffe 3644
    6 KarmaFleet 3298
    7 Dreddit 3223
    8 Blue Republic 2625
    9 The Scope 2458
    10 Brave Newbies Inc. 2388
    11 Jump Drive Appreciation Society 2254
    12 Red Federation 2145
    13 GoonWaffe 2104
    14 EVE University 2000
    15 Stimulus 1993
    16 Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out. 1959
    17 V0LTA 1955
    18 Caldari Provisions 1929
    19 Addicted To Chaos 1928
    20 Sniggerdly 1897
    21 The Tuskers 1894
    22 Gate Is Red 1888
    23 Furnace 1876
    24 State Protectorate 1804
    25 Brutor Tribe 1729
    26 Dirt 'n' Glitter 1687
    27 Faceless Ronins 1683
    28 Ex Presidents. 1657
    29 Beyond Frontier 1657
    30 Federal Defense Union 1643

    Combined; (Red versus Blue) killed 4770


    It doesn't mean anything if you don't weight it with number of active pilots...


    FWIW we have about 35 Active pilots @ 11th. 50-170 times more active than most of the groups on that list.

  • [Citadel] Tweak to Black Ops jump fatigue bonus in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey everyone. We're planning on making a targeted tweak to Black Ops battleships in the Citadel expansion and wanted to start gathering your feedback.

    This change would improve the Black Ops jump fatigue reduction role bonus to 75%, from the current 50%. This effectively doubles the strength of the bonus.

    Thank god, finally. This will make single-character, local blops use viable again.

    That said, I'm still going to finish training the 30 spare blops/capital alts. Because the fatigue mechanic is dumb and only works through making it so miserable to actively use them (with any frequency) that people simply do something else, instead.

    Fortunately we'll all just work around it by making more alts. What a well thought out mechanic.

  • Dev blog: Overlays, ISK Buyer Amnesty and Account Security in EVE Information Center

    Helios Anduath wrote:


    Overlays which contain a full, unchanged, EVE Client instance in a view only mode,
    << those words answer your question. Chopped up windows = not OK. Full client = OK. This ties into the original blog where it said elements.

    You can use the same application to clone the entire window, then resize it among other things. Which would not break the EULA as described.

    So does that mean you're banned if you break the rules? Or merely if you use a program which could potentially break said rules?

    I'll simplify it for you:
    • If it's the former they'll have difficulty distinguishing between actual abuse and normal use of the window management software.
    • If it's the latter you simply cannot use any capable window management software without the risk of being randomly banned (since if it includes the potential to be used that way - you simply cannot risk using it).


    The distinction is fairly important.

  • Dev blog: Overlays, ISK Buyer Amnesty and Account Security in EVE Information Center

    CCP Grimmi wrote:

    Overlays which contain a full, unchanged, EVE Client instance in a view only mode, no matter how large or small they are scaled, like it is done by EVE-O Preview as of today, are fine with us. These overlays do not allow any direct interaction with the EVE Client and you have to bring the respective EVE Client to the front/put the window focus on it, in order to interact with it.

    What about applications which display only a portion of the eve client in preview mode, such as ontopreplica showing the local user list from a scout?

    This is a major use-case for a lot of people.

  • [March] Tracking Module Tiericide in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Please take another look at Medium autocannon falloff. While this doesn't warrant changing the TEs themselves....they have suffered since the last time Tracking Enhancers were changed.

  • [March] Heavy Stasis Grapplers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Can't wait to see what I can do with this on Solo BS fits.

  • Gorski Car for CSM XI in Council of Stellar Management

    What are you feelings regarding small artillery vs autocannon powergrid requirements? and by extension, the imbalance caused by the Svipul having excess PG available for autocannon fits (which can be devoted to, for example, huge amounts of tank and double neuts)?

  • [December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ripard Teg wrote:
    If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module?

    As always ( Blink ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them.

    Came here to say the exact same thing. From the same perspective (small gang). Please do this.