EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-03-17 08:37
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-08 20:47
  • Number of Posts: 434
  • Bounty: 13,337 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Ripard Teg

Security Status -9.8
  • Ice Fire Warriors Member since
  • Shadow Cartel Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [Mini-blog] The Next Steps in Structure Transition in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Good changes! It looks like you guys have put a lot of thought into this, and it shows. Two questions:

    You mention that during the transition, some assets will be automatically to asset safety "as needed". Can you elaborate?

    And it's implied in your posts, but not explicitly stated: will the faction Fortizars be destroyable as current Fortizars are? If so, does this mean that over time and eventually, there will be zero faction Fortizars with no replacements possible?

  • RLML and HML balance pass in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Assuming this is not an April Fool's Day joke, this is a terrible idea.

    The whole point to giving missile ships light missile bonuses in the first place is the fact that they were running dead last by race in terms of damage application in a screen or light combat role where such ships -- particularly the Caracal -- are used most frequently. We're not exactly talking about a DPS powerhouse on its best day, perhaps 250 or 275, which you propose to reduce by increasing the reload time. If you're looking to adjust, that adjustment alone should meet your goals without removing the ammo bonus as well.

    By removing the ammo bonus as well, you push the Caracal back to 150 DPS with very bad application, which you propose to increase by 4%... to 160 DPS, or 150 DPS and very poor range. This compares to the Omen, which has 280 DPS without its drones and much superior application, then the Thorax/Vexor at 250 DPS or so. Even the Minmatar options will be superior to the Caracal. You're in essence proposing to put a whole set of doctrines right out of business and I don't see a good compelling reason why and you don't state one.

    If you're looking to work on a small/medium weapons system, how about working on a small/medium weapons system that is clearly and obviously completely broken: autocannons?

  • [February] Insurance in Upwell Structures & more from Team Five 0 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ryoko Zelin wrote:
    This corp insurance that was mentioned, I assume this is like a player funded auto-srp fund of sorts?

    Corp officers with the right roles can insure ships stored in corp hangars at offices in stations.

  • [February] Insurance in Upwell Structures & more from Team Five 0 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Very cool! Let me ask the obvious question: will supercarriers and titans be insurable when docked in a Keepstar?

  • [December] Ending the deployment of new outposts and upgrades in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Lebowski wrote:
    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! P

    I think the real question that is not being answered: "What is the rush?"

    Why is there a rush to remove the ability to anchor outposts when you don't have a replacement for some of the functionality that outposts provide, except "live somewhere else"? Why December 13, and not "next summer" or at some later point when the new structures are more functional and more polished?

  • How about a free character transfer month in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Completely speculative suggestion incoming. I'm personally in this situation and I'm not sure how many others are. Upvote if so.

    With Alphas, a potential host of new players, and maybe a boatload of returning vets, I suspect for a lot of us, all of our about-to-be-Omega accounts are full: three mains/alts per Omega account. I equally expect that lots of them have characters that people would like to move over to an Alpha account and/or shift around the alts on their Omega accounts to either make room for new alts, shift more-than-Alpha characters from previously inactive, soon-to-be-Alpha accounts back to Omega accounts, or other similar situations.

    In short, I suspect a ton of us would like to do a lot of character transfers within the accounts we possess. I also suspect the thing standing in our way is the absurd amount of money and/or PLEX it would take to reorganize. With full accounts, that's difficult/impossible without GM intervention, and with soon-to-be-Alpha accounts... how is that even gonna work? Will Alphas have to pay to move characters to Omega accounts? Will they be able to?

    So, tl;dr: CCP, please have a week or a month when character transfers are free so we can sort out our lives without having to pay the equivalent of a few months of subscriptions to do it.

    How about it?

  • Dev blog: Skill level complete - A new character sheet for EVE Online in EVE Information Center

    Is it just me, or is this character showing a +10 security status?

    (Near top left, just to the right of the clone home system.)

    Is CCP increasing the upper limit on security status?

  • Player Account Clone States and Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Claymore wrote:
    Salpun wrote:
    Looks good. Can we get new characters to start in the alpha state so character creation is as if a alpha is doing it and the new player experience is enabled correctly.

    Is this for the full client or just for the character you do the slash command in?

    If its currently in alpha state the omega symbol in the character sheet will make this unclear.

    Clone State is on an account level, so once the command is available, setting your account to Alpha and making a new character should put them as a new alpha would be. however new NPE is not what my team are working on so I can't comment on this area.

    For those of us whose accounts are all full, will biomassing and creating a new character in that slot work?

  • Player Account Clone States and Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Really nifty idea!

    How do we go about testing the new NPE? It'd be ideal if we could put in a "slash command" to kick off the new tutorial.

  • [November] Rorqual Changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Maybe I missed it, but can Rorqs carry mining frigs in their SMBs? Is this change included in November? If not, it should be.

    It'd also be nice if Rorqs could carry noobships and shuttles in their SMBs too (for the obvious reasons), but that'd just be a nice bonus.

  • [November] Orca Changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Please increase the Scan Resolution on the Orca.

    Put it this way: can a high-sec Orca even lock one of the Catalysts ganking it before (a) the Orca dies, or (b) all of the Catalysts die? Can the same Orca lock and kill an untanked gank Talos before CONCORD does the job for him?

    DPS is useless if you can't apply it.

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Glad to hear that suicide ganking is high up on your concerns list.

    Just to be clear, my particular concern in this area is veteran players using their Alpha clones to suicide gank true new players also using either Alpha or Omega clones. You don't need good character skills to do this, just good player skills, which veteran players will have in abundance. Other than ethics, I can't see much reason why every veteran player wouldn't have at least one Alpha clone set aside for this purpose.

    As to not using Alpha clones for more serious ganking, CODE has been solving this problem for years now the same way most EVE alliances solve their problems: greater numbers. Look at their freighter kills and you'll find dozens and dozens of people using T1 fits.

    For the morons in the room: I am not against suicide ganking. I've participated in it myself. My concern is the game's ecosystem, and that we'll see far more suicide gankers once the barriers to entry are removed with disposable, free Alpha clones.

    So please continue to keep it in mind, thanks!

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Three things jump out at me instantly:

    1) Unless you come up with ways to stop it, there's going to be a lively market in people who train Alpha clone accounts to their maximum states, then trade or sell those accounts to incoming new players.

    2) Unless you severely restrict individual PCs to one Alpha clone account, people are going to start literally dozens of them for the purposes of taking advantage of item #1.

    3) Pity any poor idiot in high-sec. This is the biggest buff to high-sec ganking that I've ever seen. There will be literally no reason why every EVE player shouldn't have a basic ganking account, if not lots of them (see #2).

    Plus a 4th thing:

    4) It'll be interesting to see where the upper SP limit is for Alpha clones. If nothing else, I can see a lively market in "train up Alpha clones to max", subscribe them to Omega for 30 days, cash out, let lapse back to Alpha, repeat.

  • Dev blog: Command Bursts and the New World of Fleet Boosting in EVE Information Center

    Looks really good, with one extremely glaring exception.

    What was the justification for reducing Command Ships from three Links to two, other than forcing gangs to bring multiples?

    Or was this just a typo?

  • Citadel Module Hanger in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Or you could take WIdotting to its logical conclusion and just move everyone to GoonWaffe.

  • Dev Blog - Alliance Tournament XIV Is Coming! in EVE Information Center

    CCP Falcon wrote:
    We'll take a look at thanksgiving weekend on Monday, and will more than likely adjust to suit.

    Yay! Thank you!

    And yeah, rules would be awesome. Even an indication in the post when we can expect the rules (something more specific than "later date") would be nice, thanks!

  • Dev Blog - Alliance Tournament XIV Is Coming! in EVE Information Center

    Once again, CCP has scheduled a tournament final for U.S. Thanksgiving weekend. You did this before with NEO 1 in 2012. Remember how well that worked out for your viewership? Can we please not repeat that mistake?


  • [118.6] Recurring Opportunity removal in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I'm glad you guys got the data you were looking for, and I'm even more glad that you saw the same thing that a lot of us predicted.

    I hope you guys will address the underlying causes here, rather than the symptoms. The underlying cause is that you've got to make your PvE more fun, challenging, interesting, and engaging. Your PvP players are happy -- well, we'd be happier if we could get instant fights within 10-15 minutes of logging in, but that's a different issue. Blink

    You really need to address the fact that other than incursions and a few interesting things happening in w-space, your PvE hasn't changed in 13 years.

  • [118.6] Capital Balancing in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Larrikin wrote:
  • Naglfar has an additional +60 CPU and +80,000 PG
  • XL Artillery power grid requirements have been reduced (T1: 162,500 > 125,000)[/list]

This looks like a reasonable place to start. Thank you for considering everyone's feedback and taking it into accout!

Torgeir Hekard wrote:
Greeeeat. So now it only needs 2 RCUs and a PDS to fit arty and tank.

You're exaggerating. It's looking like you'll be able to fit one capital size mod on an arty fit with no fitting mods at all. With one RCU, you'll be able to fit two. What other ships that can comfortably hit out to 160+185km can fit a heavy tank?

  • [118.6] Capital Balancing in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Q: The Naglfar won't have enough Power Grid to fit 3 guns (especialy with Artillery!)!
    A: The changes to the Naglfar's model and number of turret hardpoints are already on Sisi and we didn't want to leave this without any comment from CCP. However, we haven't quite finished our fitting balance tweaks to the Nag. We're probably going to hit this problem from both sides, with a reduction to the PG requirement of XL Artillery and a small increase to the Naglfar's PG.

    Please do more than this. The Nag is badly PG-constrained today. In its most popular auto-cannon fit, it can only fit one capital plate, zero capital neuts, and zero Capital Capacitor Boosters. It will be more than 40,000 grid short of being able to fit a third auto-cannon. And that's with T1 or CONCORD guns. With T2 guns, the deficit increases to something close to 60,000. 80,000 if, Heaven forbid, you want a T2 plate.

    Reminder: this is the auto-cannon fit. The arty fit becomes completely untenable.

    If you're going to require a third gun, Nag grid needs to go up by +80k grid at least.

  • Forum Signature

    aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.