EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2008-11-24 15:28
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-08 18:28
  • Number of Posts: 872
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

GeeShizzle MacCloud

Security Status 3.2

Last 20 Posts

  • [November] New Sunesis destroyer in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Quote:
    37.5% bonus to Core and Combat Scanner Probe strength
    ...
    Slot layout: 4H, 4M, 4L; 3 turrets, 3 launchers
    Fittings: 63 PWG, 175 CPU


    heh, really? you may as well drop the addition of combat scanner probe strength bonus if you're not adding a bonus to reduce CPU on probe launchers. theres no reason to have it on if all you can do is warp to a player and die cause u cant fit anything else on your ship.

  • Duality Mass Test: Tuesday 26th January 2016 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Habakuk wrote:
    Hi,

    Apologies also from my behalf regarding the problems on Duality today - which were all over the place and partially related to each other. We were planning to switch to a new mirror, but this was being delayed until the last minute and then we had to fallback to the old mirror - and then we also had problems with our login server for Duality. Duality was not optimally prepared for the mass test (wrong mapping of systems and time dilation disabled), which led to (or at least exacerbated) massive performance problems. In between we had also a bunch of various bugs, which we are now trying to isolate. This was really a day where nearly everything broke, which could break.

    Anyway: I saved participation data for the mass test (for all who managed to login to Duality) and skill points will be applied within the next few days (but probably after mirrors happened and so on...).




    are one of those bugs the one i was experiencing in my 'catch-me-if-you-can' flycatcher?

  • CCP/CSM Round Table: Jump Fatigue in Council of Stellar Management

    Mike Azariah wrote:
    https://soundcloud.com/mike-azariah/jump

    done and yes I know that the voice over is distracting, I honestly do not hear it anymore unless it is pointed out. It was just background noise for me.

    I will do better next time (if there is a next time)

    m


    thank you mike! :)

  • Dev Blog: Behind the scenes of a long EVE Online downtime! in EVE Information Center

    so TL;DR Tranq is more unique than any of us (players and devs alike) ever thought...

  • [AEGIS] The Hecate in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    elitatwo wrote:
    Now that the boat is on SiSi, do you mind seeding the book so we can make some things to try out?

    The skillbook should be on the market after SISI's update tomorrow.


    any idea when this will be?

    just went on singularity now and the ship is on the market but no one can test it as the skillbook is not an item in the marketplace and its definitely past usual working hours.

  • Official Video/Streaming Toolkit in EVE Communication Center

    currently contrived 'scenes' in videos do not show how eve 'is'.

    Understandably making a spaceship trailer or video to make it look thrilling can traditionally mean you may have to make a battle 'scene' unrealistic to how actual eve players fight (both in small gangs or large groups) but I honestly feel that if you have the freedom of being able to place a series of cameras in a truly realistic eve battle that you can pause, rewind and manipulate then you will be very pleasantly surprised about the results.

    Right now making a video of a fight are either done at extreme ranges or in the viewpoint of one player with the Eve UI showing. In large fights more often then not graphical quality is reduced to capture the action in a smoother fashion, degrading the quality of the video. Not even getting into the time lapsing of tidi and the camera bobbing and weaving that occurs when a long tidi battle is sped up.

    id challenge anyone to take a recording of a moderately sized fight and reproduce it in a scene editor and previewer like eve-probe to show the action 'as it actually was'.

    My request is to be able to record data of visible elements of a fight taking place that we can import into something like eve-probe to build an accurate scene that we can render in full quality with maximum graphical fidelity whilst still keeping both the framerate stable and action free from server side performance slowdown.

    We can then add in cameras into these scenes and manipulate their motions and active states to capture gorgeous visceral and more importantly accurate action of eve fights.

    to an extent this has partly been achieve with crest endpoint data of Alliance Tournament matches at 3rd party websites allowing you to re-watch the match in 3d. Expanding on this would be an amazing tool for video makers!

  • New DCU icon - Make it round! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Coming from other games a red cross is a symbol of healing, and a damage control does zero healing.
    If you're going to change the icon change it for the better, don't just make it look a lil more "spacey" with the blue gfx.

    I'd consider a muscley bicep arm encased in something to signify increased strength, but that may well look too much like the cyno fist. though come to think of it the fist isnt exactly that understandable as a cyno to newer players.

    When i see a cyno in a system typically i think "well someones just announced their location in system to me, thanks!" rather than "oh well someones just been fisted."

    ... though i guess if its a well executed hotdrop someone may very we have, however i don't think its quite right to illustrate it officially with a fist.

  • CCP what's going on why are your servers causing disconnections ? in EVE Communication Center

    dhunpael wrote:
    CCP Falcon wrote:
    Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
    I play Eve and WoW at the sametime sometimes. I get Socket Errors and logged out of eve and takes a long time to get back in, yet WoW is perfectly fine and no lag????

    Want to explain this?


    Depends entirely on where you're based. TQ is in London.

    If you're based in the US, playing on US WoW servers, then if there's an issue with a transatlantic link to Tranquility in London, you have issues with EVE and not with WoW because you're logged in to a server that's on US soil. US servers for WoW are hosted in:

    NYC
    LA
    Chicago, IL
    Phoenix, AZ


    Same as with WoW for the EU as well, their servers are hosted in mainland europe:

    Amsterdam
    Frankfurt
    Paris
    Stockholm

    So, if there's issues with third party connections to London from Mainland europe, you might get dropped from EVE and not WoW.

    TQ has been completely stable with no issues at all since before Easter break, so my guess is that there's an issue somewhere on the blogotubes that's been causing problems.

    Just because you can't reach Tranquility, it doesn't mean there's an issue with EVE, in fact the vast majority of the time there isn't.

    If you want to keep up with the server status, here's a couple of handy places to get updates if we do experience issues:

    EVE Status Twitter

    EVE Offline

    Hope this helps.


    Well, i live in europe and have the same problems. They only game that has dc's is EVE.
    Contacted my isp as well and they tell me it's not their problem.

    Since a lot of players have a problem with socket errors in EVE, something has to be true about it no?


    Amazingly enough the route your information takes from the servers in london through to your isp can pass through a great many different areas that can see outages or problems that are neither CCPs problems or your ISPs, the longer your route to Tranquility the more likely that may occur.

    Now it is possible the threshold that the Eve Client uses to determine if you've been disconnected may be a little stricter than other programs or games, that might be an avenue to pursue but i wouldn't be surprised if the client actually responds dynamically based on your ping and geographical location to be more or less lenient on hiccups with information flow.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    MeBiatch wrote:
    GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
    MeBiatch wrote:
    I dont get it... e link makes rr not work... so whats this panteon loki thing?


    for control of the grid.


    What i would do to counter this design wise... make rr stack and based on sig radius. Make sentry drones 50mb and make it so carries can't use sub capital drones. I would then add fittings for fighters and make tech two fighters.


    those are some ridiculously huge changes to the game as a whole let alone just to alleviate a pantheon loki doctrine. Considering there are still many many ways of defeating that in game without touching game mechanics or balance.

    if you're going to pitch into a discussion about game design then please don't post reactively with such insanely OP suggestions until you exhaust all other avenues of countering WITHIN the confines of the games combat systems.

    Rowells wrote:
    Gyges Skyeye wrote:


    From a user interface standpoint, can we get some clarity added to the game client on this. Modules all have a green cycle timer for ON, and a red cycle timer for OFF/SHUTTING DOWN. Something like a yellow or orange cycle timer for WARMING UP would probably suffice. It would let us more accurately know what the status of our personal entosis link is.

    Thanks

    the timer on the structure should be the one to have the count down.


    i dont think you understand his viewpoint here, he means the entosis links warm up cycle where the module hasn't affected the structure yet. There's no UI element to signify a warm up or spooling up time, only a cool down.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    MeBiatch wrote:
    I dont get it... e link makes rr not work... so whats this panteon loki thing?


    for control of the grid.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Fozzie / Foxfour... could it be possible to get some degree of CREST endpoint to how often each character is using this module?

    Much like there's new CREST endpoints detailing how much hp you've rep'd as a logi etc... itd be nice from a org point of view to be able to ascertain and reward those members doing gods work wielding the Entosis Link for both disruption and interruption.

    (having a timestamp and location would be absolutely amazing!)

    not sure if approaching it from a character standpoint or a structure log would be best, potentially structure with regards to timestamp and location.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    SFM Hobb3s wrote:
    GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
    cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.

    You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right?


    You missed the part where I lived for years in Eve's shittiest corner of Sov space (Cobalt Edge) as part of IRC. But don't let your failure to check character history stop you from making baseless accusations.


    well i apologise that i didnt recognise that you spent from the 19th of feb 2011 to the 10th of september 2012 in sov nullsec space. if you consider that time period to be years (plural) then i guess you can when rounding the time up to 1 significant figure. but from my understanding you've spent far more time out of sov nullsec then inside it, especially in terms of your most recent time in the game.

    if you feel your views are more applicable because you view your time in IRC was akin to being enslaved in the worst part of nullsec and doing such penance means you feel entitled that your view is worth more than others dealing with sov nullsec currently then theres nothing much i can say to change how you feel, but i hope some objectivity might give you perspective.

    Consider that although dominion sov hasn't changed much at all in the years it had been introduced, the strategic game and the tools and techniques both mechanically in game and psychologically outside and running parallel to the game have advanced tenfold, it is essential to consider all aspects of these when thinking critically about the mechanics of the entosis links. Striking a balance so that it is challenging for both sides of equal mass skill and resources is i believe where ccp wants it to be.

    basically please try to be objective if you want to add to the debate, cause saying things like "i dont care, let all sov nullsec burn" is not helpful in trying to shape a good balanced system, and people like myself will retort in kind.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.

    You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right?

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    although its not within the realms of any kind of troll sov idea, i do still think that the t2 entosis link + mmjd can make for some confusing ninja situations where a bc or group of bc's will seemingly disappear mid entosis cycle after cycling their mmjds but still be on close range dscan.

  • [April] [Updated] Confessor and Svipul Balance Tweaks in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
    yes but what im saying is that the currently proposed changes to the svipul will be practically ineffective, they may slightly reduce damage from a 3x stacked damage mod to 2x stacked) or slightly reduce tracking but considering the bonuses and modes and the frequency they can be changed its hardly a nerf at all.

    the -20 on the speed is far more of a nerf on the svipul then the pg loss, which is negligible at best.


    That seems to be more or less their intent, for this to be a small incremental adjustment as opposed to a "rod from god" nerf-bat from orbit.


    yah and its understanable but when you're dealing with something u can actually put on a testbed and punch numbers in to get numbers out, theres actually very little sense in even having that 10pg drop. the fits people are utilising can absorb that pg hit with ease and carry on regardless. which shows that its either in the wrong place, is too light or requires an additional factor that multiplies its effectiveness - like an associated cpu hit.

  • [April] [Updated] Confessor and Svipul Balance Tweaks in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:

    Nothing here is meant to invalidate these fits, just nerf them a bit. If you're fitting a rig to deal with the Powergrid changes then you're not fitting a rig for speed, agility, damage, tank, or something else which means your ship is less effective compared to before the nerf.


    yes but what im saying is that the currently proposed changes to the svipul will be practically ineffective, they may slightly reduce damage from a 3x stacked damage mod to 2x stacked) or slightly reduce tracking but considering the bonuses and modes and the frequency they can be changed its hardly a nerf at all.

    the -20 on the speed is far more of a nerf on the svipul then the pg loss, which is negligible at best.

  • [April] Battlecruiser Warp Speed and Warp Rig Tweaks in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Firstly, we're planning to adjust the warp speed of Battlecruiser sized ships to bring the Battlecruiser-Cruiser relationship in line with the Destroyer-Frigate relationship.
    This will mean an 8% increase in Battlecruiser warp speed, to 2.7au/s for T1 BCs and 3au/s for Command Ships.


    Love this, personally ive been utilising a warp speed rig on my instanado because of how slow it lands on grid, it makes it very susceptable to being probed and warped on top of. i may still keep the warp speed rig on actually as time to land is a big factor in modern space combat since the introduction of warp speed to hull size.

    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    We are also making some tweaks to warp rig penalties. At the moment the two sets of warp rigs have -CPU penalties, which are among the most harsh penalties that rigs in EVE can have.

    We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs).


    one of the main areas of concern with regards to usage of bc hulls in nullsec is the fact their tank is sub bs level yet for the most part they take considerably more damage to bombs then cruisers. having the penalty of the warp speed rigs affect sig radius is like giving with one hand whilst taking away with the other. if it affected something related to what its changing then not only would it be somewhat logical but would also not further widen the usage gap of shield vs armor in nullsec.

    Consider the fact bc hulls dont have the fitting resources to utilise large smartbombs and the range increase they give to neutralising bombing runs and you will see that bc's (especially shield bc's) are in a really bad place in terms of practical utilisation.

    so please change the warp speed rig penalty to ship agility or ship speed rather than sig radius.

  • [April] [Updated] Confessor and Svipul Balance Tweaks in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I honestly feel a CPU hit on the svipul would impact better than a PG nerf, granted this nerf is okay but it doesn't go that far to dealing with the issue. Stacking ACR rigs is easy, but CPU rigs are hella expensive in calibration, limiting their stacking ability.

    At worst people flying the arty fit with just a PG nerf will take off a single 1 of their 3 damage mods or possibly a tracking mod and replace it with a mapc and be on their way again.

    Having a cpu reduction on the svipul to 192CPU before skills alongside the small PG nerf would result in a curtail of the 10mn ab 280mm Arty fits better than the single pg hit alone.

    people can still downgrade their artys to make it fit or plug in some implants.

    ... and i think a 5 second warm up time for the mode change (as mentioned earlier in this thread) alongside a 5 second cooldown would be more challenging then a straight 10 second cooldown and would somewhat remove the instawarp mode change issue too.

    Edit: Also wanted to say EveHQ's HQF Editor is the sh*t for this kind of prototyping! mad props to the devs at making and maintaining that!

  • [New structures] Mooring and docking features in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Phoenix Jones wrote:
    Masao Kurata wrote:
    I thought it was a given that you would be able to log off while moored, much as you log off while docked (except taking up one of a limited number of mooring spots).


    And if you log off for a year.. What happens to that spot? The only method I can think of combatting that is that the moored capital stays in space when you log off (visually stays moored to the structure). And if you never return, someone attacks structure and destroys it, your moored ship goes floating to whoever wants it.

    Many people will hate it, but it is a necessary evil. At that point most directors and higher ups in corporations and alliances will want the ability to eject moored ships. What happens to that person if they log back on then?

    It's a debate that needs to happen.


    check my 12 point proposal that ytterbium liked btw...

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5606971#post5606971

  • Veto Corp Presents - EVE London - Saturday, May 9th 2015 in EVE Gameplay Center

    ill see u guys there!