EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2011-03-15 06:00
  • First Forum Visit: 2013-11-27 01:01
  • Number of Posts: 64
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 23

Kapytul Gaynez

Security Status 0.0
  • Hedion University Member since
  • Amarr Empire Faction

Last 20 Posts

  • Revelation & Phoenix in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cassius Invictus wrote:
    Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
    Cassius Invictus wrote:
    Revelation is Em/Thr. As all capitals are T1 they have high EM/Thr resists. It further puts Revelation behind in capital warfare.



    The shield ones don't.


    Shield ones plug EM hole. Armour ones rearly plug the explosive.



    The rate is probably pretty similar.

  • Revelation & Phoenix in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cassius Invictus wrote:
    Revelation is Em/Thr. As all capitals are T1 they have high EM/Thr resists. It further puts Revelation behind in capital warfare.



    The shield ones don't.

  • Revelation & Phoenix in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lucine Delacourt wrote:
    I don't fly a dread so I could be way off but would adding t2 capital weapons solve the issue? Scorch is stronger than null most of the time. Presumably, adding Precision/Javelin missiles would also help the Phoenix actually hit something.



    That would maybe balance them in combat some but for structure bashing(Sadly their primary use) it would just make the Moros an even better choice.

  • To fix the already broken paint job idea. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Bertrand Butler wrote:
    Quote:
    Subscriptions? Introduce game time cards? Wait...

    Aurum can be bought with isk at a current rate of ~187000isk per AUR if you choose a 1000AUR token or a plex conversion (500AUR tokens trade for 160000isk per AUR and 100AUR tokens for 230000isk per AUR). For a single run BP for the Hyperion Aliastra Edition, you will need 350AUR. That means you will have to pay about 65mil isk for your paintjob. Thats not bad at all, especially since the hull already goes for 223mil isk...

    The only problem with this procedure is that each distinct paint job is added as an additional hull in the game, and this produces a limit on the number of different variants you can have in the end. But the current system is also good because it gives you the opportunity to buy an already painted ship at the market. At the time of this post you will pay a 2mil premium for it, but you wont have to do any work like buying AUR via tokens/plex, buying the hull and producing the ship.



    This is spot on. The people complaining about vanity items costing AUR need to stop. As soon as AUR items make your ship or capsuleer statistcally better or the AUR items start to cost 100$, then you can complain.

  • Tech 2 Microwarpdrive Bonuses in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The speed bonus is the same on all the MWDs. Trying to balance all of the MWDs and ships around them would be huge waste of time and effort. Stick to Cap use, cap penalty and fitting as the differences.

  • [Kronos] Pirate Faction Frigates in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Spr09 wrote:
    They look decent for the most part, with the exception of the worm. A ship with small 5 drones out and a 10% bonus to hp and damage makes it equivalent to having 7.5 drones out at one time. However, you need to be able to kill 5 drones for it's dps to drop to 0.
    With the worm, the 300% bonus with 2 small drones makes it equivalent to 8 small drones out at once, but small drones are extremely easy to kill, and killing one drone effectively halves the ship's dps.



    The 2 super drones would be harder to kill than the 5 normal ones because of their eHP advantage. Specifically ship fitting smartbombs would have a much harder time getting Worm drones off of them.

  • Combat t2 Destroyers? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mr Floydy wrote:
    Lucine Delacourt wrote:
    Mr Floydy wrote:
    Command ship destroyers would be fun :) I like the idea of having some more destroyers in the game either way, a tougher hybrid platform based on the Corax would be sweet :D



    They would end up switching the hulls and making the Flycatcher use the Corax hull and putting hybrids on the Cormorant hull.

    Don't see why they'd switch them around. There are multiple other ship hulls that change weapon types for T2 versions. Gives players with different skills a chance to fly the hull styles they want ;)



    They just went out of their way to fix that on the BCs. I am sure they would try to minimize it wherever possible.

  • Combat t2 Destroyers? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Woeful Animation wrote:
    I am going to throw my support behind this concept. Destroyers fill a niche role as an anti-frig platform, but beyond the interdiction capabilities of the Sabre and like, they don't see much use. So in the vein of using the ship to fill other niches here are some ideas.

    1. Localized Ewar platforms, designed for use in larger fleet engagements. As an example a Destroyer with the ability to create an area of effect "on grid" resolution lock time decrease (eg Gallente ship). At level 5 Ewar Destroyer skill, the ship can reduce the Resolution scan by 50 from all enemy ships within a defined area. The effect on frigs and cruisers would be small. The same effect on larger ships would be huge, effectively doubling the lock time of a battleship. Multiple Dessies EWAR rigs on grid would suffer a stacking penalty. (Of course this is an idea, so use imagination for other races). Give the modual an insane capacitor load to keep it in balance. Allowing this to be used in capitol warfare would also be an interesting way to make sub-caps a part of larger fleet battles. (Caldari ship type would work as a short range EC-300 drone with a small area of effect and a small chance to jam for 1 sec. Just long enough to break locks. The Mini version would act as a mobile web platform and the Amarr would have a cap drain or small tracking disruption ability.)

    2. Covert Ops Hunter. The ability to use a specialized scanner probes; when activated in proximity of a cloaked ship, acts to decloak the ship and jam the cloaking ability for up to one minute. I would suggest a specialized skill to increase the range (think size of the probe) . Level 1 may be 1 AU, where as level 5 may be 16 AU in size. This would put a hard clamp on afk cloaking. To balance the ship from being the last word in gate camping, have the probe carry a long time of flight and reaction timer like the normal scanner probe, and would be visible on D-Scan and in the overview. Once used the probe disappears.

    3. Smart Bomber. No not a misprint. Dessie specifically designed to use smart bombs. The idea would be to fill the high slots with these bombs and plow them through enemy drone blobs or blobs of ships for that matter. Give the ship a cyno/cloak ability and Dessies would have a role in Black Ops.

    4. Command on grid links platforms. For use with small gangs. Provides one gang link like a command ship but with 50% less effectiveness to maintain balance.

    5. I am not in favor of a bigger badder T2 combat assault Dessie. We don't need another counter to Destroyers. They are essentially balanced to be their own counters. IMO.

    So essentially as a final comment. The Destroyers would have a stronger rbut more specialized role in both small gang and larger fleet engagements. A frig gang running into an EWAR Dessie would smoke the Dessie, but the smart bomber would wreck the frigs if it got close enough. An EWAR Dessie would cause plenty of head aches for Battleships and possibly capitol ships, but would still be countered by frigs and cruisers. A covert Ops hunter provides tons of content as the hunters become the hunted and neutral cloaky campers have a possible counter.



    I like all of these ideas. I would probably look for a different mechanic for the CovOps hunter though. Not sure exactly what though.

  • A Bridge to Nowhere... in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Anhenka wrote:
    Pew Terror wrote:

    Adding a risk to a riskless endevour kinda entails the unmitigatable risk. Bububut i wanna keep my titan 100% safe in this POS isnt a really good counterargument.


    "But nobody will use a titan to bridge into a system if there is even the tinest chance of them losing a fight, thus increasing the prevalence of massive blobbing at a 10:1 ratios and the horrible effect of forcing everyone to try and show up hours in advance to prevent being massacred while going through a gate which btw is an EXTREMELY unfun tactic." is a perfectly good counterargument.



    ^^^^This^^^^

    Adding risk is a good thing, adding it in a way that will completely prevent people from taking that risk is not.

  • A Bridge to Nowhere... in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    Lucine Delacourt wrote:
    Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
    Any titan that opens a bridge should absolutely be required to go through that bridge.



    I was all for this at first. It was pointed out to me though, the actual effect this would have is ruinous. People wouldn't bridge fleets unless they had the system the Titan would end up in completely secure, but if the system is secure why would they need to bridge in a subcap fleet? The end result is that people would end up using jump gates for subcap fleets and Sov warfare would return to "whoever gets their guys in system first wins". Any Titan balance has to bear in mind how risk averse corps are with their titans. Finding a balance between reasonable safety but still getting people to get their titans all the way out of the forcefield is always going to be hard.

    There is no balance between "reasonable safety" and getting the titan out of the POS. If a change to bridging mechanics makes it so that people are too afraid to bridge at all, those who take the risk and do bridge will have a massive advantage over those who don't. That's a perfectly reasonable state of play to aim for.




    Forcing the Titan to warp with the subcap fleet will result in no one doing it. So no one will get a "Massive Advantage". It is adding risk with no gain and no reasonable way to mitigate the risks.

  • Just got back - Cheap solo PvP in EVE Gameplay Center

    Almost all of the t1 frigates, Shield or Armor Ruptures, 2x Rep Thorax or Maller, Most of the Assault Frigates and the Typhoon or Megathron. All depends on what you consider cheap I guess.

  • A Bridge to Nowhere... in EVE Technology and Research Center

    A simple start would be requiring Titans to be X meters away from any structures before being able to open a bridge.

    Otherwise, the ship mooring for a "fleet jump" is kinda cool and I would be for it. Something like all subcaps can moor to a titan, Cruisers and below can moor to Carriers/Super Carriers and Recons/Bombers/CovOps can moor to a BlOps. It could atleast be an interesting option to look at.

  • Combat t2 Destroyers? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Abrazzar wrote:
    How about a destroyer that is specialized in dealing with the category of the enemy faction?

    Gallente: Anti-Ewar
    Amarr: Anti-Agility (or maybe Anti-Blob)
    Caldari: Anti-Drone (and maybe even fighter)
    Minmatar: Anti-Remote Transfers

    Adding more countermeasures may spice things up a bit.



    This is along the same Vein as AEGIS destros. Some sort of fleet screening measures. If they can code HIC-like bubbles for the destros with different effects(I.E. ECCM).

  • Combat t2 Destroyers? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
    Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
    I would like a 2nd set of t2 destoyers but the current Dictors do combat just fine. Fly a Sabre and enjoy Eve.


    Yes, however they do no more fine in combat than their less expensive counterparts. Only real change is an extra 3-4k ehp 30-40+mil on an dictor vs ~10mil on something that can do nearly the same thing, minus warp bubles(which are only used in null)



    The Sabre is so much better than a thrasher. The ships are in no way comprable and the Sabre is worth every penny.

  • [Kronos] Pirate Faction Frigates in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I really think the actual effectiveness of the Cruor mis-matched bonuses will remain a mystery until we get them on the test server. Their are definite pros and cons when looking at it on paper. To a lesser extent the effect of the proposed changes to the Worm and Succubus will also be interesting when they are actually flown instead of us just modifying our fitting tools.

  • Sion Kumitomo for CSM 9 in Council of Stellar Management

    Ali Aras wrote:
    I've done that too, but that risks giving away more than making the decision does. It's compartmentalization, same as anything else-- God, you want an example of that, just look at independent CSM campaigning! Everyone wants you to have an opinion on different areas of space and different aspects of balance in the game. Some of those are being looked into and worked on by CCP right now, and yet, those of us who're re-running explain how we think such-and-such should be changed and how we thing balance in so-and-so works.

    Anyways, I'll let Sion post on his own thread, I just thought I'd chime in with the present-CSM perspective, as it's something I've actually had to deal with.



    I appreciate the input either way.

  • Combat t2 Destroyers? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    If they ever got Defender missils to work in a reasonable fashion, a set of AEGIS Destroyers would be boss. Some sort of Cloaky hunter Destro would be cool too.

  • Sion Kumitomo for CSM 9 in Council of Stellar Management

    Ali Aras wrote:
    As a present CSM, you know that stuff, you weep internally, and you don't let it affect your decisions at all.


    Seems like it would be easier to recuse yourself from being involved in that particular decision than trying to figure out what you would have suggested if you didn't know the future changes that will be involved.

  • Combat t2 Destroyers? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I would like a 2nd set of t2 destoyers but the current Dictors do combat just fine. Fly a Sabre and enjoy Eve.

  • Sion Kumitomo for CSM 9 in Council of Stellar Management

    Sion Kumitomo wrote:
    Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
    My intent was to imply that I don't think you are going to break the NDA. Maybe I did not imply hard enough. I, probably naively, assume that you wouldn't even run if you weren't sure you could resist the temptaion to talk. I suppose my real question is, do you have the willingness to recuse yourself from Coalition or Diplomatic talks if your CSM knowledge would color your decisions?


    I'm curious as to what you mean here. What kind if situation do you envision where CSM knowledge might create a conflict with diplomatic talks?





    Any number of admittedly unlikely but possible situations. When moon goo was switched around, presumably the CSM knew about it before anyone else did or maybe they plan on releasing something that majorly promotes "Farms and Fields" and you end up in an alliance or coalition planning discussion involving whether to expand territory or consolidate it. Maybe not be perfect examples but hopefully you get my point. You would have access to information that could directly benefit your Corp/Alliance/Coalition and even if you don't spread that info, it could still effect your stance in those decisions. Hopefully that was a little clearer. I am afraid that I am struggling to find a super coherent way of expressing my concern.