EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2010-02-14 23:45
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-05-11 03:40
  • Number of Posts: 4,430
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Rowells

Security Status -2.4
  • ANZAC ALLIANCE Member since
  • Mercenary Coalition Member since

Last 20 Posts

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

    Fish Hunter wrote:
    Especially the way you're implementing it basically allowing a group to Ninja another groups outpost right before change time and then give a week long invulnerability which is perfect for unanchoring the new collectors item.

    How does one "ninja" a station? This truly would have been useful information back in WWB. That cleanup took weeks, maybe even months.

    Hell, it would have especially nice during the tribute war. I'm sure NC. And horde would have appreciated this kind of info before they spent weeks trying to make progress.

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

    Drago Shouna wrote:

    You're full of crap..

    Lots of us have been arguing the whole time,even at fanfest.....

    Team 5 0 led by Fozzie doesn't give a flying feck what the player base think of the changes, they never will.

    Fozzie.."so what if players leave, we can always get more"

    That's what he thinks of all of us.

    Sorry couldn't hear you over the resounding applause of multiple presentations regarding destructible structures. Could you say it one more time please? Maybe with enough people to be heard over the crowd.

  • To: The Developers (Ability To Set Engagement Radius For Drones) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    If I had 10 isk for every time "but AFK" was used as an excuse for QoL improvements, well I wouldn't need to bother with income.

    At best it supports an active players ability to utilize an included feature of drones.

    At worst it might...? I'm not really seeing how this benefits AFK play style so much that it really changes the meta even a little bit. Doesn't affect fighters since they specifically don't work unless ordered to. And doesn't help very much on assigned drones since the engagement range is always determined by distance from the mothership. And since the range can only go down, it's not even a new advantage.

    I for one would enjoy not finding out that my EC-300s have decided "that damn sentry gun must be jammed" in the middle of a fight.

  • Little things / Small QoL suggestions in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Suggestion: Add a drag and drop feature to the autopilot route
    Keywords: autopilot, route, starmap, destination, waypoint
    Note:
    ---
    Just a way to more easily manage and adjust routes on the fly without needed to open the route planner or remake the entire route. Possibly even going as far as to allow linked systems to be simply dropped directly into the route between waypoints.

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

    Valkorsia wrote:
    What we don't like is being 'setup' by a dev who clearly has an ax to grind with Providence and has lost touch with the very player base he seeks to attract.

    I'm having flashbacks to WWB SOTG speeches.

    Is that you...mittens?

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

    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    Rowells wrote:
    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    Rowells wrote:
    It's going to be really neat seeing nullsec outpost models in empire space

    I wonder how highsec/ NulSec NPC stations will be handled as far as ownership, vulnerability and destruction gets handled.

    What happens to all those nice safe LowSec NPC stations where FW dudes stage and live?

    As far as the current plan (or any hinted/discussed plans) they're not changing at all.

    Although I understand the reasons why, I still feel it is a shame especially for LowSec.

    I don't fancy wading through all the fanfest footage - Are HighSec and LowSec stations being treated the same as those in Nul as far as industrial things go?

    Same as nevyn said, I haven't heard any plans to make NPC stations like player-owned structures at least in the last year.

    Destructible FW stations might actually be an interesting concept though.

    E: maybe I'm not understanding that second part. What do you mean by "as far as industrial things go"?

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

    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    Rowells wrote:
    It's going to be really neat seeing nullsec outpost models in empire space

    I wonder how highsec/ NulSec NPC stations will be handled as far as ownership, vulnerability and destruction gets handled.

    What happens to all those nice safe LowSec NPC stations where FW dudes stage and live?

    As far as the current plan (or any hinted/discussed plans) they're not changing at all.

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

    What will happen to market orders and contracts during the change?

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

    Petrified wrote:
    Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
    Scatim Helicon wrote:
    Haven't seen any mention of this elsewhere: is there any intention to alter/remove/etc the NPC stations in empire and pirate sov 0.0?

    No... why you ask ?


    Likely because they don't like the freedom people have to live in NPC null.

    Who doesn't?

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

    Milla Goodpussy wrote:
    what about players who have researched BPO's of those platform eggs?

    Good question.

    Milla Goodpussy wrote:
    what about players that were told they'd get reimbursed for having that ancient crap!

    Probably get angry at the person who told them that. As far as I've seen, CCP has been purposely vague about this process until now because they hadn't decided yet.

    Milla Goodpussy wrote:
    what about the sov holders who were hoping to be paid out based on the value of the outpost in order to fund their keepstar project!!

    They can still sell them if they don't want the new structures. Otherwise them hoping for more isk was kind of a long-shot anyway.

    Milla Goodpussy wrote:
    this entire idea you came up with fozzie sucks.. so you sit there and provide an event for wrecking balls to steal stations on the last day then they'll get a free faction citadel in its place..

    Not CCPs problem at all if the owners can't hold their assets under normal mechanics. People were told outposts were going to be nuked one day. If they thought they were going to get a free ride until then, that's their own problem.

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

    It's going to be really neat seeing nullsec outpost models in empire space

  • Fighters damage level indicator. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    It's already on deck for next release:

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=515661&find=unread

  • [MAY] Blood Raider Capitals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Hi Space Friends, please check the OP, some updates have been made!

    Update (2017-03-28 1610)
    • Added local repair bonus to Dagon
    • Reduced Corpse bays for all

    Riot

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    DK52BS wrote:
    in regards of SRP programs... there hundreds of ways in Eve to earn ISK and establish a suitable SRP. We don't have any r64s and I must say that our SRP is very generous and it is working very well.


    Preach it, brother. It's one thing for me to yell loudly at clouds about how to fund SRP programs, but quite another seeing another group actually getting it.

    Banging your head against rocks does not necessarily make the rocks smarter

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Hopefully CCP will put some consideration into making the process of collecting or dissmeinating taxes/bills a little easier. The mining tracker is nice, but using it might become extremely tedious.

  • [MAY] Blood Raider Capitals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Creecher Virpio wrote:
    Why is a 90% PG reduction for remote armor reps necessary for the fax machine?

    My guess is fitting numerous neut/NOS on top of the existing capital mods is a lot of fitting pressure

    Although I wonder if the dread wouldn't benefit from it too

  • [MAY] Blood Raider Capitals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    30% on the FAX vs 15% on the others is intended? Also, is the lack of resist bonus going to make the tank somewhat weaker than the Apostle?

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    zluq zabaa wrote:
    You list things that are all active, each of them. You have to be active for PI just as you have to be active for current Moon Mining, just as you have to be active for Hauling or Mining (well not so much actually) and you agree on that. If you do not compare the Time Investment vs. Profit in ISK for each of these activities your list stays pretty much worthless.

    My PI chain is currently running while I'm not logged in. Care to explain how I'm active right now?

    And what about these industry jobs? I keep checking them from the API and its still progressing along, but the mining alt I logged off this morning doesn't seem to have any extra ore anywhere in its assets?

  • Suggested Changes to Structure Vulnerability/Reinforcement Mechanics in EVE Technology and Research Center

    With the implementation of new structures cane a very different way of dealing with timers. Most notably, the extension of the time it takes to kill one vs what has been used for a POS or POCO. It more closely represents that of sov RF mechanics in terms of vulnerability and exit timers.

    On the one hand, this has made life much easier for a Structure owner to manage and ends the need to use strong or get to a tower quick enough to set the stront right. It also gives a much larger window in which the defender has time to organize and prepare for a final defense.

    On the other hand, it has made the life of potential hostiles very frustrating and time-consuming. It can be made to specifically exclude certain TZs from ever participating in the process, with possible exclusion of weekends. If we include some oddities and unclear mechanics, it further makes the life of an attacker much more difficult.

    All things considered, the change has drastically moved to favor the defender.

    So I propose an adjusted system that more closely leans toward old POS RF mechanics, while maintaining a progressive benefit for the defender as the situation worsens. The goal will be to allow specific advantages to either the defender or the attacker, depending on the situation. The goal also includes making sure that not all of the maximum benefits for one side or the other are in play during the majority of the process. Behind the shoots and fights themselves, there will be a little tug of war for different aspects of process.

    Now for the details: (for this example we will use citadels Astrahus, Fortizar, and Keepstar. Values may be different for other structures)

    Removal/Repurpose of Vulnerability Timers

    - Remove vulnerability timers
    - Introduce exit windows

    This is similar to how SOV and POCOs work. The owner sets times that they choose as for when the structure wil exit on any given day. Each structure will have a certain amount of hours per week/day which it may exit. For starter numbers, I suggest 21/28/36 for M/L/XL respectively (specifics debatable). On top of that, all structures must have a minimum of 1 hour each day of the week. Using my suggested numbers, this means the exit timer could range from a balanced 3 hours for 7 days, or a more conservative approach; 1 hour for 6 days and 15 hours for one day.

    This allows the owner to be flexible about which days they believe they are likely to have more coverage throughout the day. Maybe longer times on weekends or maybe Wednesday is a good day, so you throw some extra hours then. Regardless, this puts the choice of response in favor of the defender.

    Structures Are Always Vulnerable

    - There is no defender choice on occurrence of initial attack

    This allows groups with multiple TZs to cooperate, without entirely deciding the result. It also returns the advantage of initiative back in favor of the attacker. All other things equal, a true surprise attack should be the advantage of the attacker. It also allows them to use a little Intel/spy work to possibly time the process when it suits them or is perceived as unfavorable to the enemy.

    Reinfocre Durations and Occurances

    - Varied number of timers based on structure size
    - 1 - 2 day timers on all structures
    - Services no longer affected by RF
    - Retain 15 minute repair window

    To give a clear and significant benefit to choosing a larger structure, the number of possible timers will be based on size: Medium = 1 timer, Large = 2 timers, and Extra-Large = 3 timers. With increasingly valuable assets comes more chances to protect them. Or at a minimum, more time to recover assets. Varying timer counts somewhat reflects the amount of effort needed to destroy certain sized structures, which can be especially painful if there are no defenders present. This also more closely reflects Medium structures to their POS counterparts

    As for time between exits, it would be a simple method: the structure will be vulnerable again on the next timer after 24 hours. This allows the defender a minimum of 24 hours to be notified and prepare. In conjunction with the 1 hour minimum per day, this also ensures that hours can't be stacked in a method requiring the whole week to complete. To clarify, this means that if the end of that 24 hour period lands on an exit window, the next (the following day) open timer is chosen.

    Since Medium structures (the most common) won't have multiple timers, it would be very unfair to consistently have services shut off because the attacker is simply playing TZ games. Also returns a bit of home-field advantage back to the defender.

    Structures will still retain the 15-minute repair window. This mechanic is very favorable compared to old POS/POCO repair mechanics.

    And that pretty much sums up the process.

    TL;DR:
    - more opportunities for attack
    - less frustration for attack
    - time investment for attack more granular

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Will the new moon-roids (we have a name yet?) be compressible? And if yes, will the effective compression allow the same amount of transport as today or will it become more efficient (in terms of m/3 per moon mat)?