EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2010-12-30 03:31
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-01-18 22:12
  • Number of Posts: 17
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Katsuo Nuruodo

Security Status -1.0
  • Suddenly Dreadnoughts Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Buy this ship again in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hmm, this would be handy. However, what would also be handy is being able to buy a saved (or linked) fitting.

    Maybe you could combine the two. Leave the "save fitting" button on the killmail, but on the fitting window add a "buy fitting" button. Then, when someone links you a fit, or if you lose a ship, you can go to Jita, click "buy fitting", click the "fit" button, and you're ready to go.

    You could use a similar interface to the sell multiple items window, so you could look at the prices(and how they compare to the average) before you pull the trigger.

  • [Odyssey 1.1] Tech 1 Industrials in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Rise wrote:
    Not wanting to use the leftover 4 haulers is quite a bit different from not knowing what to do with the primary ones.


    But, it does seem that you don't know what to do with the primary ones. You're putting 8 ships into 2 roles. Eve isn't about giving all the races practically identical ships, its about giving them different ships that are all viable in their own roles.

    You've said before that industrials don't do anything special now, why should they after the rebalance? But that's the thing, there were differences between the race's industrial ships before. With Gallente, you could get the biggest capacity at the cost of the longest training time. With caldari you had a smaller cargo hold, but pvp potential. With minmatar, you had a large cargohold with less training time than gallante. And amarr gave you a fairly large cargohold with even less training time than minmatar.

    Now, I realize that you're doing tiericide, getting rid of training time for better ships, but that doesn't mean you should just remove the differences, you should replace the tier differences with some other notable difference. A reason to choose one race's industrials over another. People chose certain industrials because of their differences before. Now it seems you want to give everything to everybody regardless of what choice they make. That's not what EVE is about.

    Honestly, I think you'd be better off taking the time to do this industrial rebalance right, rather than change the ships now, then change them again in a little while.

    I agree completely with the article posted here: http://themittani.com/features/industrial-homogenization-vs-meaningful-choices?page=0%2C0

  • Unscheduled downtime - Sunday, June 2nd, 2013 in EVE Communication Center

    New York, USA

    I can log in, but after selecting a character on the character select screen, it sits on a black screen for a while, shows a pop up for unread eve mails, then pops up a "connection lost" dialog, with the options to restart or quit. So, I can't actually get into the game.

    I've tried two different accounts, and tried launching the game from both the launcher and the bin/exefile, but get the same problem every time.

  • [Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Amarr in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Some time ago CCP rebalanced the battlecruisers, which included large nerfs to the drake(the ship and its weapon systems). My corp, a wormhole corp, along with many other wormhole corps, used drakes for making isk in c3 and lower class wormhole systems.

    So, when we saw the planned changes announced, our corp spent time looking at other ships and fits to replace it. In the end, we settled upon the Armageddon (spider tanked). We chose this because it was a good fit for the job, in fact better than the drake ever was, it was inexpensive for a battleship, and CCP stated(in regards to the upcoming battleship tiericide) "Armageddon: this ship is performing well at the time being, and thus we have little reason to alter it." ( http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/73530 ). Since we had a ship that CCP indicated would not be changing soon, we all trained up for it, and started using it to run the anoms, right around the time the drake changes were coming out.

    Now it seems you're planning to change it entirely, which makes it completely unsuited for what we've been using it for. Neither the apocalypse nor the abaddon fit this role well, certainly not as well as the current armageddon. The armageddon has a rate of fire bonus and a cap bonus, 7 turret slots, a utility high slot, and a large(125m3) drone bay, making it a perfect choice for small gang pve. Once this change happens no amarr battleship will have this feature set.

    The Apoc ship is used much less throughout EVE than either armageddons and abaddons, and it seems like it would have been a much better choice to re-purpose. Why are you planning to take a popular ship, which was used commonly despite being a lower tier ship and that CCP stated earlier would stay the same through the tiericide, and completely change it, with no replacement for its feature set?

    Wouldn't it be better to just release an additional battleship for each race, so that you can give gallente, amarr, and Minmatar an Ewar Battleship, without completely changing ships which are already well liked and well used?

  • Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations in EVE Information Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Update on our current progress:

  • The Private Hangars have a usable version completed, with the key functionality working. Work is remaining on peripheral issues so the structure is not yet in a shippable state but a lot of progress has been made.
  • Taking your feedback so far into account, the Private Hangar currently has a storage size of 50,000 m3 per character, slightly larger than had been discussed before. We are interested in your opinions about that change.

  • Repackaging modules in Starbase arrays is done and shippable.

  • Accessing modules everywhere in the shield is done and working for inventory look, give and take actions.

  • The CSMA anchoring change is completed and the structure has been renamed to "Extra Large Ship Maintenance Array" for clarity.

  • As usual your feedback is welcomed.


Sounds good to me. Thank you for working to improve POSs.

I'm still hoping that you'll be able to add in director or CEO access to PHA's sometime this year. As other people have mentioned, being able to grant other characters access to your bay would be nice, but that would likely be a bit more complicated to implement.

  • Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations in EVE Information Center

    Pelea Ming wrote:
    You already face the potential of these issues with currently existing mods to one extent or another.


    I'd disagree. No POS modules currently allow storage of an unlimited amount of m3. POCOs, which do allow this, do not drop anything when destroyed.

    Just imagine if a corp with high member turnover maintains a POS with a PHA for 5 years.

    Or, for that matter, imagine if a corp collectively created 3 new chars every day(could be done with trial accounts, or just extra alt slots), and used each new alt to fill a bay in the PHA with shuttles(this would only cost about 880mil for the entire year). You'd fit 80 shuttles into each bay if they're 40k m3 bays. After a year of doing this, if someone blew up the PHA, you'd suddenly have up to 87,600 shuttles spawned in space.

    For that matter, fill the bays with frozen corpses. Each bay can hold 20,000 of them.

    Hmm, would this crash the server? Or just cause an insane amount of lag?

  • Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations in EVE Information Center

    Etheoma wrote:

    And if your not a fail corp you should be able to get over 75% of your members online within a 24 hour window leaving time to evacuate. So i wouldn't call it junk by any means. Its a down side but the upside in my opinion outweighs the downside.


    Well, 75% of currently active members. The longer your pos is up, the more bays full of stuff from not currently active members you're going to get.

    CCP is always sending out emails to inactive subscribers, trying to get them to rejoin. Sometimes this works. But, if someone decides to resub, find that their items were all just destroyed by the CEO, well, that resub has a good chance of not lasting very long.

    And sure, the upside does outweigh the downside. This is a great new pos module which many people, including myself, are going to put up. It just has one major glaring flaw that's going to effect almost every corp that uses it, unless it gets fixed within a reasonable period of time.

    People have been saying that you can tell people to remove their stuff before they unsub. Well, sure, you can ask. From my experience though, this rarely happens. Many times when people let their subscription lapse(from what I've seen), it's after a period of inactivity. They log on less and less often, then one day when they try to log in, they find out that their subscription has ended, and decide to take a break from EVE.

    I plan to set up methods in my corp to reduce the chances of this happening, but I can't eliminate it entirely. And, our corp policy has always been that RL comes first. If you have to leave EVE suddenly, without having time to conclude your affairs in game, well, we'd like to be able to take care of the stuff they left in our care until their return.

  • Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations in EVE Information Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    And to also repeat the statement my earlier post, that allowing CEOs to access the storage within the PHA does not currently appear to be an option for the first iteration of the structure. We may consider it for later iterations.


    I really hope that you do add that feature as soon as possible.

    Just curious, when you say "later iterations", are you thinking within 2013, or beyond? I could live without that feature for some time, but eventually, it's going to really limit what our corp can do.

    Because, basically, until that is changed, wormhole corps(and any corps that base their operations and day-to-day operation out of POSs) will be largely unwilling to move between systems, or even upgrade their pos, because it would involve destroying items that belong to their members.

    And, if they do decide to go ahead and move or upgrade their POS anyway, the only logical thing to do will be to bash their own POS modules, so that they'll get at least some of the stuff out, rather than destroying it all. Is that really what you want for standard POS moving procedure?

    Furthermore, logging back in after taking a break from eve to find the stuff you've collected over the years all gone, and have only your corp's CEO to blame, is going to hurt the chances of returning subscribers from sticking around, and cause "corporate interpersonal relation degradation", as was discussed earlier in this thread. This doesn't seem like something you'd want either.

    The issue with this item is that it's a "trap" item. To begin with, it's great. Everyone can have their own private bay, with no limits to how many people get bays, and no having to deal with corp roles to hand out bays. Almost no one would say no to that. I mean, you don't plan to have members leave the corp, and you'll think that people can be told to move their items out before dropping subscription.

    But, after a POS has been up for months, or years, you're going to have a PHA filled with many billions of isk worth of inaccessible items. You might want to move your POS, or upgrade it, but doing so would mean that you'd be destroying a massive collection of items that belong to people you've flown with and been friends with in game. People who might return at any time.

    If they do return, they won't have an enemy alliance to blame for their loss, or a corp thief, they'll have only their CEO to blame. You can't wage a war against the enemy alliance in retribution, or seek out and repeatedly podkill a corp thief, you just have to take the loss. That's going to cause you to lose returning subscribers, right there.

  • Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations in EVE Information Center

    Kennesaw Breach wrote:
    Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
    And, are you saying that in order to move your POS to a different place, you'd now have to bash your own pos modules first?


    That would be the unfortunate side effect of the proposed personal hangar array. If there's stuff in it when you need to move, and the owners of that stuff aren't around right then, the only way to recover anything is to blow it up.


    That's true. So, Fozzie, is that really what you want here? Standard procedure for moving your own pos involves bashing your own POS modules?

    In wormhole corps, member turnover is rather high. So, if you have a PHA in a corp pos for any length of time, you're going to have items stuck in it.

    There's also the issue of giving items to people. Quite commonly when someone makes a run to a trade hub, they'll grab a few items for other people, then just drop them into the appropriate hangar bays when they get back. But, now, you can only transfer items if the other person is online, and at the POS when you return. Or, I mean, you could use a CHA and reassign roles each time to make a temp hangar bay for a person, but ugh, changing roles a few times a week? It's bad enough doing it once every few months.

    This module messes up asynchronous item exchanges.

  • Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations in EVE Information Center

    Sinzor Aumer wrote:
    Tennessee Jack wrote:
    I get what they are doing.
    ...
    2) It turns into a loot Pinata, (a reason to bash a POS and destroy the corporation). If you don't want the enemy to get your cool loots.. take the damn thing down. You lose all the crap... thats the sacrifice you take for putting the array up, and thats the sacrifice the people take for storing crap in that thing.

    Ok.. fine. Loot Pinata Approved, more conflict approved, complete restriction and denial of internal basic item corp theft, approved.

    Always nice to meet another sane person ;-)
    Dont you think the ability of defenders to blow up all stuff kinda discourages the attacking side? And a saboteur can deal a lot of damage with a single click of a mouse - seems like a bad design, isnt it?
    What if a PHA remains anchored unless it's completely empty? Much better solution from any point of view, imo. Well, just imagine you log in and see a corp mail: "I accidentally our PHA, all of it. Sorry. Sincerely, 1-day noob."


    If your corp is giving PHA unanchoring roles to a 1 day noob, well, you've got bigger problems there.

    And, are you saying that in order to move your POS to a different place, you'd now have to bash your own pos modules first?

  • Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations in EVE Information Center

    Sinzor Aumer wrote:
    Katsuo Nuruodo wrote:
    On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable.

    1. You can always choose to never anchor a new PHA, only use CHA.


    That's another way of saying "your corp can never have more than 13 members". This change would let us do away with that restriction. I'd rather like to finally be able to grow my corp above this arbitrary limit we've had to live with so far.

    Sinzor Aumer wrote:

    2. There are risks of living at a POS, and in a WH in particular. Evacuation of a base for any reasons is one of those risks. If a corpmate doesnt want to take those risks - too bad for him. EVE is a dark cold place, etc. etc.



    I wasn't talking about evacuation due to being attacked. I was talking about moving to a wormhole system that better suits the needs of our corp members.

    Also, you seem to have missed the part where I stated:

    Now, of course this happens currently when a corp theft happens, and when the POS is attacked. But, there's a key difference here. Currently, the person to blame is the corp thief, or the attacking force. But, with the change, the person to blame for all your stuff being lost would be the corp CEO or directors. You're the one that took down the POS.

    Additionally recall that I was trying to prove the following point:

    this change will lead to "corporate interpersonal relation degradation"


    Sinzor Aumer wrote:

    3. You're a CEO, damn it, not a baby-sitter. If corpmates connot care for themselves and their property - should you care? If you choose to be a baby-sitter though, you have an option #1.


    We have always been a corp where RL comes first. If something happens in RL that pulls you away from EVE for weeks, or months, we want our members to know that their stuff will still be there when they come back, even if you had to stop playing suddenly, with no time to prepare in game.

    And, as for option #1, well, I don't want to be limited to 13 members.

    Sinzor Aumer wrote:
    PS: I bet that player who lost his tengu to POS guns whould have quit anyway.


    It wasn't a tengu, and while he may have left anyway, this occurrence increased the chances of him leaving quite a bit. Seems to me that CCP wouldn't really want to alienate returning paying subscribers.

  • Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations in EVE Information Center

    Sinzor Aumer wrote:
    Alsculard VanHellsing wrote:
    So far the new CHA is being universally hated by the major entities in W-space. Besides what is listed above and in countless (to me) other posts in this thread on this subject, it creates more problems than it solves. Bareface trolling and an increased potential of corporate interpersonal relation degradation will be the main result of the new CHA. (in its current form)

    Some anonymous entities is not a valid argument. Please explain how it leads to "bareface trolling" and degradation?


    I have been the CEO of a wormhole corp for years, and I agree that this change will lead to "corporate interpersonal relation degradation". There should be some way for either ceo's, directors, and/or corp members with some certain role to be able to move items to and from other people's hangar bays.

    On a number of occasions, people in my corporation have left for months, then returned. To have to tell them, "oh, we decided to move to a different solar system two days ago, so all your stuff is gone", isn't exactly desirable. It also greatly decreases the chances of them continuing their subscription. I had one corp member who was with us for the better part of a year, left for a few months, returned, and, because he had been dropped from corp while he wasn't playing, lost the expensive ship he had logged out in to our own automatic POS guns. He stopped playing shortly after that and has not returned. Imagine how much this would be amplified if someone returns to find out all the items they've been collecting in their WH home are now gone.

    Now, of course this happens currently when a corp theft happens, and when the POS is attacked. But, there's a key difference here. Currently, the person to blame is the corp thief, or the attacking force. But, with the change, the person to blame for all your stuff being lost would be the corp CEO or directors. You're the one that took down the POS. If you don't want to destroy people's stuff, you'd have to keep up old POSs indefinitely, making moving or changing POS models prohibitively expensive.

    My corp has lived in quite a number of different wormhole systems over the years, and every time we've moved, we've hauled everyone's stuff out and saved it for them, whether they were currently active or not. I don't want to be forced to decide between preserving billions of isk worth of my corp member's items, and moving to a new system so that my corporation can grow and thrive.

  • Nathan Jameson for CSM8 - Communication, Diversity, and Wormholes in Council of Stellar Management

    SojournerRover wrote:


    I was on the Talocan United board and worked closely with you and your leadership and I will not be voting for you.


    Hey, aren't you the guy who tried to invade one of Nathan's wormholes, failed, then cried on the forums when we invaded your wormhole and didn't fail?

  • EVE Online: Escalation to Inferno Issues in EVE Information Center

    CCP Sputnik wrote:
    If you are experiencing Issues with the Launcher not starting up correctly you should first try the following workarounds (this is covering multiple issues start from the top down and only try the next workaround after you have tried to start the Launcher and Game):


    1. Try to restart the Launcher.
    2. Open the launcher directory inside your client install (default: C:\Program Files (x86)\CCP\EVE)
    3. Check if you can find 'updater.exe' inside the cache folder, if yes run it - Check if the Launcher is now working.
    4. Delete the cache directory under launcher inside your client install directory - Check if the Launcher is now working.
    5. Delete C:\Program Files (x86)\CCP\EVE\common.ini and run the Client Repair Tool - Check if the Launcher is now working.
    6. Check if an alternate way of patching works for you.


    We are working on a new version of the Launcher which should be released tomorrow.

    Edit:
    Update of the workarounds


    Running the updater.exe worked for me. Thanks!

  • EVE Online: Escalation to Inferno Issues in EVE Information Center

    The launcher will not launch. When I click on it, the launcher does not appear on screen, and, by watching the task manager, the process runs for about 30 seconds then goes away.

    I ran the repair tool, and it downloaded some files(I'm assuming that's the update), but the launcher will still not open.

    I tried rebooting my computer. I am using Vista 64. The launcher and eve client were working fine last night, before the patch.

    I was only able to launch eve by running the "Exefile.exe" in the bin folder of my eve installation.

  • EVE Online: Crucible 1.2 Issues in EVE Information Center

    The fleet target broadcasts are no longer appearing on the overview.

    Before this update, when someone in the fleet broadcasted a target, some small white letter and number would appear on that line of the overview.

    I haven't changed any settings recently, and this just started happening today, so it seems like it must be a bug with the update.

    Is anyone else having this problem? Is there some setting that enables or disables this?

    Thanks

  • Wormhole stabilizers and selfdestructing ships in Council of Stellar Management

    I agree with the OP. This seems like a great way to accomplish what ccp wants to do, without all the problems wormhole stabilizers would bring.