EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2006-10-28 23:21
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-02-19 19:37
  • Number of Posts: 272
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 229

Niskin

Security Status 5.0
  • League of the Lost Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Sounding board for structures in w space in EVE Gameplay Center

    I went and read Corbexx's blog post about Structures, for reference, this is what it says:

    Quote:
    Station games and linking.

    I've had a lot of people moan about wormholes getting docking games and this simply isn't the case. It basically comes down to a couple things, people not reading the feedback thread and CCP not explaining it really well.

    Here is what it will mostly be like.

    you will be docked, you will be able to see the grid outside. So can see if anyone is about. You undock and enter a linking phase, while in this linking phase you are invulnerable, can't lock people or be locked yourself. You will how ever be able to fly around the citadel to a certain distance. This will act as a pseudo force field.


    To be fair, this isn't exactly like docking in a station, but it doesn't seem different enough to avoid docking games either.

    The only real differences are that in this situation you will be able to see what is on grid while docked, and when you undock you will have limited invulnerability. Now we don't know from that post whether being "linked" is time limited, distance limited, or action limited. For example, if I initiate warp, does invulnerability drop immediately? The answers to those three possibilities may determine whether docking games will be possible or not.

    Basically if I undock and initiate warp, if that drops my invulnerability, then it will be docking games galore. If invulnerability is only distance and/or time related then that might solve the problem. Though if it's related to distance then bumping puts docking games back in play.

    I posted my feelings about these structure changes in the Features and Ideas thread here. I think staging is one of the most important benefits of having a POS. I don't think CCP fully understands or agrees with this based on how they are trying to proceed. Maybe there is more info out there, that I don't have yet, that addresses these concerns. At least that's what I'm hoping, because it feels like they are missing the point with these new structures, even if I agree with where they are trying to go with most of it.

  • Sounding board for structures in w space in EVE Gameplay Center

    corbexx wrote:
    zar dada wrote:


    I'm not up to date if these changes have already been flushed out...

    1. Please ask CCP NOT to bring station games to wspace and still allow some indication of how many ships/pilots are floating at the new POS replacement structure



    you are indeed right you are not up to date if you had read the replys to the feedback thread or my blog you would understand linking and how there wont be station games


    I just finished reading all 26 pages of the thread about structures in the Features & Ideas Discussion forum and didn't get that impression. It's been like 20 pages since a dev responded though, so that could be why. If you could poke them and get them to post an update there it might help with the visibility on that.

    I'll go check your blog though, I haven't been keeping up to date on much in EVE while I've been inactive.

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

    First let me say that I like the idea of what they are trying to do with structures in general. Even though fitting defenses to a POS--like you would a module to a ship--might give me less flexibility than I have currently, I have no issue with that change. The idea of using structures to be able to put up market hubs or other things we can't do now, that is a great idea. With that in mind, the need to be able to dock does go hand in hand with putting up a market hub. So in general I'm fine with all of that.

    What isn't a good idea is this concept that: because POS shields have issues that are hard to solve, the only solution is to remove them. Now I don't think docking and POS shields should be implemented together, they should be an either-or choice for any structure. Both are needed for different purposes, but let's be honest, docking in a structure is really no different than docking in a station, and station games suck. If you remove POS shields in favor of docking you will bring the pain of docking games to all. We need both functions available, if these new structures are to maintain and expand the function of structures in EVE.

    Nobody seems to want to talk about these edge-cases or "secret problems" as they have been called throughout this thread. Whether it's POS-Bowling or Skynetting or Off-Grid-Boosting, all of these problems have been identified and discussed on these forums in the past. There are no "secret problems," only an unwillingness to deal with them on the dev side. I get it, the old code sucks and should be scrapped, you'll get no disagreement from me there. But rather than writing new code for a bunch of new features that purport to cover all the things the force-field did, just write new force-field code. I have faith in the dev's abilities, but asking them to do something stupid will just result in well-written albeit pointless code.

    All the edge-cases that I've ever seen could be solved with one simple force-field design that acknowledges their existence. The force-field should be two parts: #1 Protection, #2 Systems Limitation. The protection aspect would mirror the current force-field size and functionality. If you are inside the visible shield you are protected from engagement and free to stage or manage your structure. The limitation aspect should be non-visible and extend past the protection field. Maybe 50% further, maybe some other amount, that is debatable. While in that space you can't lock others, activate boosts or light a cyno. The cyno restriction could be waved for those with the ability to enter the protective field, making it an offensive restriction only.

    I'm sure there are edge-cases that I don't know about, but it just seems easier to deal with those directly, rather than try to come up with something new that does what force-fields do but in different ways. It's possible pilots may find better ways to exploit these new systems than they have under the current system. Not to mention, how do you know a structure is online when you aren't on grid with it? A force-field shows up on d-scan. That's pretty important to see in WH's at least.

  • CSM X voting has started in EVE Gameplay Center

    Done!

    I'm going to be activating a 2nd account before the voting ends so I'll vote again if that account is allowed to.

  • TF for CSM X in Council of Stellar Management

    Sorry to hear it TF, you would have been second on my ballot behind Corbexx. Having read your blog I have an idea about what the problem was. Does this prevent you from ever running or could you try again with another account? I think you'd make a great CSM and so I hope there is still a chance, even if it's for CSM 11 or 12 or 13...

  • [Phoebe] Long Distance Travel Changes - updates! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Jihad leader wrote:
    jump fatigue with jump bridges for non capitals is bul*shi*......... who thought up the idea of ruining rapid response: I am bearing but lookie a hostile fleet is is 10 jumps away killing people meh.... i wont go i don't want the fatigue.............. your ruining this game one patch at a time whats next cutting fleet bonuses 20%? OHNOES they has links which is an advantage better nerf it so noobies don't cry........................ Seriously remove the non capital jump fatigue its dumb its killing pvp all over the map period admit the mistake and fix it seriously its nice supers and capitals are limited but you ruined everything a JB is truly useful for


    Did you seriously just come here to complain about the fatigue from a single jump-bridge jump that you could easily run out by flying the 10 jumps back to your bearing spot and continuing what you were doing? The jump-bridge gives you the speed you need for a quick response, it is serving its purpose. If you absolutely must use the jump-bridge to get back, rather than flying 10 jumps, then you will have to live with the fatigue, or wait 50 minutes before you use the jump-bridge again.

    If you start with no fatigue, the max the bridge can give you is 60 minutes, and you can jump again in 50 minutes without experiencing exponential increases.

  • [Phoebe] Long Distance Travel Changes - updates! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I never knew Radiohead made a song about jump fatigue.

  • Cloaking and D-Scan: How does it work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Clearly my brain cells have failed me. The ones responsible have been identified and scheduled for termination... as soon as I get to the store for more alcohol.

  • Living in a Shattered system?! in EVE Gameplay Center

    With my setup, the version with the SPR II, you should be fine in any C2 combat anomaly. The data/relic sites are another story, I would expect to have to warp out once or twice to regen shield on those. There was one C2 anomaly where I found it beneficial to warp out and regen shields. It wasn't definite that they would break my tank, but I was getting low and I wanted more buffer in case of surprise PvP.

  • Cloaking and D-Scan: How does it work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    At the risk of pissing off a few people and losing some of the goodwill I've been shown in the past, I have to respectfully disagree. I spent enough time on roams and in gate camps in the old days to know it worked differently than it does now.

    Cloakers never showed for more than 2 seconds if they were on top of things. And 2 seconds was pushing it, generally it was closer to one. I know this because anytime a person cloaked after coming through a gate, the first thing we would try to do was decloak them. If targets were showing on the overview for 2-4 seconds on average, we'd have caught a lot more. Some people were really good at this and in that second or two they could spot the ship, aim for it and get moving. I was a bit slower with the camera and would usually dive near where the decloaking pro's were heading.

    On the other side of the situation, if I was visible for 4 seconds after cloaking, you'd never even see me cloak. I'd be off grid and in warp by the time I disappeared. I've never seen this happen, ever. It may be possible now though, I haven't been in a position to test that since I got back.

    I looked through a bunch of patch notes, and there wasn't a definitive "we're changing this" anywhere. The server tick system did change with Incarna, back in 2011. Since then there were a few minor adjustments to cloaking mentioned in some of the notes, but nothing major besides the change in visuals. The cloaking animation change was too recent to have been the culprit.

    So i really can't say what it is, but it's not the same as it was the last time I was heavily involved in gangs/fleets. I'd have to go back through corp history and killboards to figure out the last time I was in a position to witness it. It's not really worth pursuing though, I'll just adapt to how it works now.

  • Living in a Shattered system?! in EVE Gameplay Center

    xPhyrax wrote:
    [Drake, Wh Drake build (solo)]
    Shield Power Relay II
    Shield Power Relay II
    Ballistic Control System II
    Ballistic Control System II

    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
    Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
    10MN Afterburner II
    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

    Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
    Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
    Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
    Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
    Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
    Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
    Medium Nosferatu I

    Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
    Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
    Medium Core Defense Field Purger I

    Hobgoblin II x5


    Reading Fail EDIT: I have large shield extenders, not mediums. You will definitely want to skill up to fit large's.

    You shouldn't need that high of a tank for a C2 site. My Drake has a similar fit and only has tank issues with some of the battleships in those anoms. If you flip one SPR II for a DC II and one Invuln II for a Target Painter that's the fit I have been using. I've altered it a bit since then, changing the SPR II to a PDS II and the AB II to a Micro Jump Drive, but haven't tested the tank since then. My skills for that ship and fit are pretty good though, so that might make a difference.

    With a full rack of Heavy Missiles, using T1 ammo and a Target Painter, stuff dies pretty quick. Only the battleships take any real time to kill.

  • Cloaking and D-Scan: How does it work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    So something did change then. Cloaking used to be instant and you would disappear from the overview right away, barring server delays and latency. Now it seems you don't disappear right away but gain invulnerability until the process is complete. I've never seen an invulnerability message on anything that wasn't on a station or in the process of jumping a gate before. So that explains how the overview and d-scan could be linked and the ship could still show up on scan for a few seconds without being vulnerable to fast lockers.

  • Cloaking and D-Scan: How does it work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    So everybody agrees that disappearing from the overview and d-scan is synchronized, which is what I thought. My confusion was that I thought they were saying there was a delay on the d-scan part, after the overview part, which I've never seen. As far as the delay itself, it can't be more than a second or two unless something changed in the last few years.

    Back when I lived in null I dodged my fair share of bubble camps in the Cheetah I'm still flying today. Anybody who dropped their jump cloak and immediately cloaked was unlockable, even though they showed on the overview for a second. Even with a scan res boosted setup it was impossible to lock them before they cloaked. I've read that these days it's possible to get lock time below one second which is effectively limited to one second by the server tick.

    If there were more than a 1-2 second delay that would allow for these fast-lock setups to catch cloakers without ever needing to dive for a decloak. Unless that's handled server-side, like cloaking requests are prioritized before lock requests, it's hard to see how a cloaking ship showing up on the overview for 2-4 seconds wouldn't die in a fire a lot of the time.

    Sorry, I'm not trying to be annoying or anything, it's just that all this stuff is connected in my head. If I find out a mechanic works differently than I thought, it triggers a chain reaction of re-evaluation in my head. I appreciate everyone's input.

  • Cloaking and D-Scan: How does it work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Shilalasar wrote:
    Was posting about this multiple times really faster than logging into the game and having a friend d-scan while you cloak?


    The forums are my only friend at the moment, and I was at work. Smile

  • Cloaking and D-Scan: How does it work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    While arguing in the F&I thread about D-Scan Immunity for Recons, I pointed out that a person only shows up on scan for a second or two between dropping the jump cloak and activating their own cloak. I was then told that this isn't true and the ship can still show on scan for 4-5 seconds after activating the cloak.

    Link to thread here

    I then pointed out that I've never seen that happen, ever. Since I've been flying solo the last couple years I can only attest to this behavior when on grid with the cloaking ship. When I see somebody cloak and I click d-scan, they are gone immediately. If they weren't I'd start asking questions or wonder about it.

    Back when I played with a group I don't remember this ever being mentioned by anybody. But I can't test off-grid d-scan results myself so I have to ask here. Am I missing something? Have you ever tested this while on comms with a buddy?

    Basically if I'm wrong I just want to understand how it actually works so I know for the future.

  • [Proteus] Reduction in Fighter and Fighter Bomber scan resolution in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Panther X wrote:
    I'll leave that whole string in because it does answer stuffs.

    The operating word is COULD. Not DOES, not 1 or 0, or refers to null, but...maybe?

    Who knows if it is a major change or a minor change? No one has definitely addressed that one way or another. Did they look at that? I don't know. Does anyone?

    Maybe I have to run for CSM just to get the answers I want. I don't like half answers, especially to the stuff that affects me and or my style of play. It's up to me to decide what's important and what's not, just like anyone else. Troll me flame me, I don't really care. I just want to know more.


    As a guy who writes code for a living, when I said "could" I should have said "will." When a mechanic has already been tested and has been live in production for a long time, the affect of changing the inputs is predictable. Whereas changing the mechanic itself requires extensive testing. So we're talking changing some database values and checking to make sure the new values don't have unintended consequences, versus designing a new mechanic, coding the new mechanic and testing the new mechanic.

  • PI in 0.0.. How profitable is it? in EVE Gameplay Center

    I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but it's definitely a no on the original question. An Advanced Lava Facility outputs 3 Robotics per hour. With Command Center Upgrades 5 you can fit two of those with enough other stuff to keep up the pace on Consumer Electronics. If you can keep up the pace on Mechanical Parts also, you can run 24/7 and you will get 144 Robotics per day. That is for one Barren and one Lava planet. At around 60,000 ISK per unit of Robotics that makes you 8.64m ISK per day. That's nearly 260m ISK per month.

    Now if you can get two of each planet you could double that. If you use alts you can multiply by the number of alts. Ideally, running 3 toons with 2x Barren and 2x Lava planets each, you could make 1.6b ISK per month. The work required to maintain that would be quite substantial and that's assuming you had access to all the right planets and they weren't bleeding resources due to other player's PI installations. That's without taking POCO taxes into account at all, which I'm sure you will have.

    Keep in mind that you will pay POCO taxes to bring the Mechanical Parts up from the Barren and again to send them down to the Lava. And then once again to extract the Robotics to go sell them.

  • [Proteus] Reduction in Fighter and Fighter Bomber scan resolution in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Panther X wrote:
    OK we are getting closer to the heart of the matter. There's a partial explanation, but break it down. Fighters still do really little to no more damage than sentries against structures. Why are they getting the same treatment, and sentries aren't. In a capital structure grind supers will use FB's carriers are probably going to drop sentries.


    That's a fair question, I don't know why Fighters got the same adjustment. It's possible there is a fighter based exploit that they didn't go into detail about. Maybe somebody else around here knows?

    Panther X wrote:
    And I don't know who sits at zero on a structure grind either. Anyone who's smart is not going to sit at zero and wait to get counter dropped by PL or goons or whoever.


    I think the point is that one would only sit at zero on a structure when they wanted to use this exploit. It's riskier, but up to 50% more damage is a huge damage boost when talking FB's on a structure. Essentially two SC's could do the damage of 3 in the same amount of time.

    Panther X wrote:
    Reduce scan res, make all drones one animation (instead of 10 drones make them one), delete supers, make it Ishtars Online, I don't really care.

    Just give me the REAL scoop, give me the numbers to back that sh!t up, tell me where it's going. Just be freakin honest.

    But this specific situation, where scan resolution of two, and two only specific drones, in an extremely limited scenario, seems to be more back burner stuff. There is more important stuff that needs to be addressed in the game. If tears and smug was a power source, there would be no energy crisis.


    Others have explained it already, but the difference between a data change and even the simplest code change could be the difference between an hour of work and weeks of work. Fixing exploits is important, enough so that they feel they need to make this change now.

  • [Proteus - January] Recon ships in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ab'del Abu wrote:
    Niskin wrote:
    That has not been my experience. There will be inherent delays due to long distance communication with the server, and the 1 second server ticks will propagate that a bit. But I've never seen a case where somebody cloaked and still showed on scan for any length of time, even for 1 second.


    I find your lack of knowledge disturbing. It's Wormhole 101 that you'll show up on dscan for at least 4-5 seconds even if you immediately re-cloak.


    I can't speak to off-grid d-scan results, because I only have one account and have been playing solo the last few years, but when on-grid you are dead wrong. When I sit and watch a wormhole connection and something comes in and cloaks, I click scan and they are gone. No delay, no 4-5 seconds. They are just gone.

    Back when I played with a group, from 2006 to 2012, I never once heard of this delay. Maybe something has changed since then, I don't know. I'm just telling you what I'm seeing, and it's been 100% consistent so there was never a reason to doubt it.

  • [Proteus] Reduction in Fighter and Fighter Bomber scan resolution in EVE Technology and Research Center

    This doesn't seem that hard to figure out. POS/Sov arrays don't move. You can sit at zero on them. You can launch fighter bombers, then scoop/recall them, then launch them, then scoop/recall them, over and over again. This provides for up to a 50% DPS increase on any target that can be attacked in this way. They changed the scan res to prevent this from happening, maybe not the perfect fix but it solves the problem with minimal impact in other areas.

    Having the damage applied at the end of the cycle is another potentially good fix, as another poster mentioned. Another way to go at it would be to lower the signature of the mods most likely to be shot in this way, but that would take a lot more effort and might not catch all the scenarios.

Forum Signature

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow