EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-03-31 04:22
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-06-11 15:15
  • Number of Posts: 129
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 199

Haquer

Security Status 0.0
  • Vorkuta Inc Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Michael Harari wrote:
    Lev Arturis wrote:
    Michael Harari wrote:
    A drake with perfect HML skills can now be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters.



    A Rail Brutix/Beam Harbinger with perfect gunnery skills can still be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters.


    Er....no it cant?


    Could you provide sources? My EFT's with 3x gyro/mag/bcu/heat sink show that all the platforms do similar or less damage than HML's and certainly don't have the same ranges with high DPS ammo.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Michael Harari wrote:
    Inggroth wrote:
    Michael Harari wrote:
    A drake with perfect HML skills can now be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters.

    Which is exactly as it should be.
    Beam Harbinger, Rail Brutix and Artycane arent exactly dps monsters too.

    And HAM Drake will be even better post HM nerf.


    A myrm cant tank an artycane on a single rep. Artycanes outdamage drakes as they are now AND are faster AND have a larger drone bay AND still have small neuts.


    Heavy Missiles are not a close range, high DPS platform.

    They are just like artillery/rails/beams in that they are high alpha low DPS.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Daniel Plain wrote:
    Liang Nuren wrote:
    T's little helper wrote:
    Heavy missiles are already the weakest weapon, lowest damage, significant delay between launch and hit, low rate of fire.
    If heavy missiles are too powerful on cruisers, then adjust the cruiser hulls, not the missiles or their launchers.
    Can also agree on nighthawk, it has needed a boost for a VERY long time now. Changing misiles this much to the worse will have a dramatic effect on an already suffering ship, so if this change will ever happen, the nighthawk need extreme bonuses the very same day this change goes active.


    I'm sorry, did you just say that Heavy Missiles are the weakest weapon system? And you said it with a straight face?

    LolLolLolLolLol

    -Liang


    while not exactly the weakest, heavy missiles in and of themselves are far from strong. to see this, just compare HML ships to similar hulls:
    caracal vs. rupture. cerberus (lol) vs ishtar or vagabond. nighthawk vs sleipnir etc.



    Why are you still comparing short range weapons to the long range heavy missile?

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Grath Telkin wrote:
    You are all aware that looking at DPS numbers on HML's is like comparting DPS numbers on artillery right? They're alpha weapons, their DPS doesn't mean **** all, its what their alpha is which is what matters, and their alpha will still be quite high.


    This.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    B-b-b-but guys myyy drrraaakkkkeee (((((((((

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    rofflesausage wrote:
    Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.



    Let's pull up the top 20 page on eve-kill dot net

    Rank Weapons Kills
    1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 78177
    2 425mm AutoCannon II 20772
    3 Heavy Pulse Laser II 15799


    Yeah, you're pretty much full of ****. Heavy missiles are OP and should be nerfed.

  • CSM dev blog: A tribute to Sean 'Vile Rat' Smith in EVE Information Center

    RIP Vile Rat from EnderCapitalG

  • [Winter] EW Cruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I love the new blackbird capacitor. This will be very nice for newbees flying them in our fleets.

    Also, the others look good to me (way better bonuses than before)

  • The voting reform discussion in Council of Stellar Management

    CCP Xhagen wrote:
    Ahoy.

    The topic of the election system used to choose the CSM has been with it from the beginning. Just to make it clear, the recent discussion was done with my knowledge and approval – for the purpose of discussion. I admit that having the CSM posting the idea was not the best move on my behalf, as it sends the wrong signal about the whole process. I will be the person determining whether a change will go through regarding the CSM or not.

    I’ve always been the speaker for talks and discussion that is then followed by a decision. I’ve done my very best to run the CSM with that in mind, you could easily dig up many things from the time when the concept of the CSM was being brought back into use in 2007 and surrounding most of the changes after the first election in 2008.

    This is no different. During CSM6 and CSM7 I’ve brought up the topic of the election system with the CSM and now they felt comfortable enough to take it on and discuss possible changes to it. What I do not want is to change the election system just to change it – I want to achieve a fairer representation on the CSM and the STV has often come up as a possible way. However, the answer has usually been ‘large voting blocks can easily game any advanced voting systems’, thus the idea of moving the votes from those who do not get enough, instead of moving the votes that exceed the necessary number to get on. The discussion on the election reform thread clearly paints that as unfair and I fully understand that criticism. Either you move all votes or none is the mandate (if I’m reading the thread correctly) – when put like that is seems obvious…

    So, putting Trebors idea aside for the moment, what election system would suit the CSM? A system that does not scare people away because of its complexity or added work for the voter (as voter apathy is a problem), but is still fair and good? Is the current system sufficient? Or should we focus more on matters to reduce the number of candidates on the ballot and not change the election system itself?

    I would appreciate your input on this matter.


    The current election system is fine. Just get more people to vote and it will balance out the "voting blocs" that exist today.

    Else, you could change the system completely and then end up completely surprised when it's gamed.


    E: Also, don't try to put in a system like Robert Woodhead Backwards tried to put in, in which overvotes for candidates are thrown into the nether because "screw voting blocs" please.

  • Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform in Council of Stellar Management

    The Mittani wrote:
    I do not normally comment on CSM issues, but regrettably some in the CSM have invoked my name in a way that would imply or infer that I advocate for or otherwise support this proposal, which I do not.

    I think it is unfortunate that this CSM is so afraid of popular voting that they would invent a new system while trying to pass it off under the guise of 'STV'; I can understand their fear of bloc voting and I respect their opinion, but trying to imply that I somehow support this policy shows that they have a lot of growing up to do. The popular opinion is that the CSM should be focusing on game-related issues and getting results instead of fretting about who 'controls' the CSM itself - after all, who cares who controls a CSM if it accomplishes nothing?

    This will be my only comment on the issue. Please do not try to involve me in your proposals again; if you must bring up whether I supported X, Y or Z in the past, we're all in a Skype channel together so there's no excuse for not conferring with me about what I support/do not support before making a public assertion to that effect. Good luck in your future endeavors!


    Thank you for this post.

    It was hilarious of them to try and say you supported this.

  • Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform in Council of Stellar Management

    I mean, I have 3 accounts and if my 3 votes got thrown out man I would be PISSED OFF

  • Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform in Council of Stellar Management

    Dramaticus wrote:
    Oh hey I see we're still trying to prop up a brazen attempt by this CSM to throw away the votes of paying subscribers because they do not like who they'll be voting for!


    B-b-b-but bloc votes andandandand ((((((

  • Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform in Council of Stellar Management

    ******** Pubbie wrote:
    And as to the literally the whole CSM is nothing but CFC/Test so nothing new there then.


    Err, there's actually no CFC members and only one TEST guy on the CSM right now, but good try guy!

  • 500m to declare war on Goonswarm? (AKA: why are small corps penalised by the wardec system?) in EVE Communication Center

    Frying Doom wrote:
    Lord Zim wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:
    Lord Zim wrote:
    So you're Jade today? What's next, "it's a blight on your war record" and "you're so embarassed you whined to CCP to get the mechanics changed"?

    No just pointing out that wars do effect Goonswarm members.

    They have an effect on dumb fucks, yes. For anyone who isn't a mouthbreathing ******, however, the effects are ... well, evemail spam. Pretending that the effects go beyond that is just to emulate Jade.

    Well you must have a hell of a lot of mouth breathers in Goonswarm. You have lost thousands of ships to war decs.


    Oh no not thousands of ships.

    Good thing we don't take part in wars in nullsec in which we lose thousands of ships in a day or less than a week for months on end.

  • Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform in Council of Stellar Management

    Frying Doom wrote:
    Haquer wrote:
    Two step wrote:
    Haquer wrote:
    Massive Pubbie wrote:
    December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"


    Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh?

    And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".


    See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.


    Actually I DID read the last minutes and even parodied them on twitter because they were completely the worst thing that I've ever read, bar none.

    But still, "the CSM" does not mean "the Mittani" and trying to attribute it as such is hilariously dumb.

    EDIT: Also, calling it "STV" is completely disingenuous as it's not like actual STV at all and actually disenfranchises voters.

    He was referring to the minute from CSM 6. I would ask how it disenfranchises voters but I will just get some babble back.


    Overvotes for candidates are thrown out. This disenfranchises voters.

  • Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform in Council of Stellar Management

    Two step wrote:
    Haquer wrote:
    Massive Pubbie wrote:
    December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"


    Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh?

    And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".


    See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.


    Actually I DID read the last minutes and even parodied them on twitter because they were completely the worst thing that I've ever read, bar none.

    But still, "the CSM" does not mean "the Mittani" and trying to attribute it as such is hilariously dumb.

    EDIT: Also, calling it "STV" is completely disingenuous as it's not like actual STV at all and actually disenfranchises voters.

  • 500m to declare war on Goonswarm? (AKA: why are small corps penalised by the wardec system?) in EVE Communication Center

    No guys, clearly 99% of us don't do logistics with neutral alts, especially when hauling alliance moongoo through highsec.

  • 500m to declare war on Goonswarm? (AKA: why are small corps penalised by the wardec system?) in EVE Communication Center

    Frying Doom wrote:
    Lord Zim wrote:
    Effect of wardecs on GSF:
    1) one or two complete idiots dying.
    2) evemail spam

    Fucks given: 0

    Goonwswarm federation vs The Honda Accord.

    Goonswarm killed
    12,986,988,614 isk
    98 ships

    The Honda Accord (A bunch of industrialists)
    47,632,963,261 isk
    844 ships

    So those one or two idiots died an awful lot in that war.
    A lot of spam was given

    As to the last well I think the total was a lot more than 0.

    So it would seem the effects of war decs are more than nothing to Goonswarm.


    Oh boy they killed 844 ships of morons who shouldn't have been in highsec in the first place (because it's literally garbage).

  • Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform in Council of Stellar Management

    How long until Mr. Woodhead comes and either completely ignores my post or responds like the snide child he is?

    STAY TUNED TO THE EVE ONLINE DOT COM FORUMS TO SEE WHAT'S NEXT ON DRRAAAGGGONNN BALLLLLL ZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

  • Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform in Council of Stellar Management

    Massive Pubbie wrote:
    December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"


    Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh?

    And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".

    Massive Sperglord wrote:
    The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).


    It will be hilariously gameable, as already pointed out. Also, why is it fine to disenfranchise voters if they overvote?

    Literally The Worst CSM Member wrote:
    If you believe CD-STV is more gameable than the current system (by large groups with decent exit polling), then I have provided you with a tool you can use to make your point. I am honestly interested in what you (and others) come up with. Casual statements that "the system is more gameable" are not persuasive.


    "Casual statements"? Really? We prove multiple times that it's gameable and you still keep your fingers in your ears shouting LA LA LA LA?

    Robert Woodhead Backward (so clever!) wrote:
    A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.

    You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.


    We would simply split the vote between 4 or more candidates with them all picking one another for their undervotes to transfer to, allowing the eliminated ones to shove the non-eliminated into the top 7. Why do you keep ignoring this?

    Trebor "Hilariously Useless" Woodhead oh man I mean Daehdoow wrote:
    On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council.


    How exactly does voting reform that screws over big blocs help you improve the quality of the candidates by allowing even more useless fluff like yourself onto the CSM?