EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2011-06-10 08:11
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-12-24 02:17
  • Number of Posts: 267
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 225

Siobhan MacLeary

Security Status -1.0
  • Hole Violence Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • High Sec Ganking - CONCORD Balance request in EVE Technology and Research Center

    NightmareX wrote:
    Nat Silverguard wrote:
    NightmareX wrote:
    Nat Silverguard wrote:
    NightmareX wrote:

    Like i said earlier, lame excuse for what the real issue is. Just because it's a game, doesn't mean you can just keep ganking other like no tomorrow without more consequences for keep doing it.


    why? if the game is about villainy, why should i not be a villain?

    because you said so? then, ..|..

    good day.

    The game is all about balance towards everyone. One side here is having a very low balance vs risks atm that should be fixed.


    it is balanced, and nothing you say, unless with proof, can convince me otherwise.

    Good for you. But ask any freighter pilots who gets ganked on how they feel about the gankers consequences if those risk vs reward mechanics this way are fair or bad. You know pretty well what they will tell you. But you wont admit it because you are a massive ganker ingame yourself and don't want to get harder time ganking the more you do it.


    Freighter pilots who overload their holds and autopilot around deserve to be taught a lesson.

    Most of them don't seem to learn a thing so we will keep applying a clue-by-four to their heads until they get it.

    Also, ganking things actually takes a fair amount of skilled organization so your argument that ganking is too easy is automagically invalid.

    Also:

    ██░░█░█░███░███
    █░█░█░█░█░█░█░█
    ██░░█░█░██░░█░█
    █░█░█░█░█░█░█░█
    ██░░███░█░█░█░█
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ███░███░███░███
    ░█░░░█░░░█░░█░█
    ░█░░░█░░░█░░███
    ░█░░░█░░░█░░█░█
    ██░░███░░█░░█░█
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░FOR KIDS░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

  • High Sec Ganking - CONCORD Balance request in EVE Technology and Research Center

    dude

    this is a game

    remove the stick from your ass and untwist your knickers, stop being stupid and stop acting like this suggestion of yours is anything beyond you going "Waaaaaaaah I got ganked waaaaaah CCP needs to cater to me waaaaaah"

  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?

    No, except in the case of T3 cruisers fitted with the appropriate subsystem. Nullification should, on other ships, be a choice that negatively affects combat ability. Insta-warping nullified interceptors have removed a massive amount of the tactical function of area warp denial.

    How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?

    Ships that exist solely to transport pilots or very small amounts of cargo - and cannot warp cloaked - are a reasonable target for nullification. Shuttles, basically. Yachts and Blockade Runners can warp cloaked, ergo have no need to be nullified since they already have tactics at their disposal to evade warp interdiction.

    Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
    Yes, anchorable bubbles should continue to exist, and additional forms of static emplacements - mobile turrets, anyone? - should be introduced. Said static emplacements should be subject to the decay and reinforcement mechanics like modern deployables, EG, if left floating unattended in space for more than 30 days they should unanchor, and when damaged should offline and enter a reinforcement period of reasonable length, perhaps four hours.

    Mechanics should also be introduced to limit the number of static emplacements within a given area ongrid, so it becomes mechanically impossible to surround a gate with hundreds of bubbles. A maximum of six bubbles and twenty-four mobile turrets within a given 1k km cuboid is where I would start, with further adjustments made as necessary.

  • Dev blog: EVE Online’s Growing New Great War: the Battle of M-OEE8 in EVE Information Center

    Good job biting hard onto Reddit's teats and reposting a screed filled with factual errors.

  • Vote Xenuria: CSM 11 - Reform The CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Xrend wrote:

    Clearly you must have just resubbed to this game..... Russian Carebear Coalition??? Whatever. the only thing that even keeps Russians living in W-space is the TZ. No one likes shooting towers after DT.


    I've been subbed nonstop since 2011. Quazerknocks is a real thing - Lazerhawks, Hard Knocks, and the remnants of Quantum Explosion have banded together to push everyone else out of C6 Magnetar space and succeeded, then have proceeded to set up renters/alts in those systems to farm the sites.

  • Vote Xenuria: CSM 11 - Reform The CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Vic Jefferson wrote:
    Xenuria wrote:


    I think there is a crucial piece of logic missing from your Master Stroke~.

    Without eve online, there is no space empire.

    To the best of my knowledge there is no "Content Rationing" happening in The Imperium. I have never seen anybody stop somebody from participating in a fleet op by saying "Woah there buddy haven't you had a little too much content today? Sit this one out."



    They don't need EvE Online to persist once they have cashed in their shares of website ad revenue or kickstarters. You have a very naive understanding of high level Goonery.

    Of course content is rationed, very carefully, very calculatingly. They keep perfect stasis on 2/3 of the map such that there cannot be a reasonable threat to their security. EvE is supposed to be about vibrant, Byzantine empires rising and falling on the fickle whims of very human gods; capsuleers. Any empire purely devoted to maintaining the past status quo in it's entirely is an empire in decline, yet they are happy to see such a gradual decline in the game and their empire so long as it feeds more than their in game wallets.

    Give KarmaFleet some FCs, have them toss cheap, disposable fleets around with no consequence, and their fresh crop of newbies is placated and mollified. They are rationed out cheap, meaningless content - gone is the gravity of actual fights, over things that may have meaning. They fed a two-bit propaganda stream about 'Our People' and how joining the Imperium is 'Winning', when in all actuality, it is losing by essentially removing all of the chips from the table; what fun is gambling, risking, and playing, when all of these are removed and all conflict is sport with no gravitas?

    This is the status quo they want to preserve, and content rationing is quite effective at it.


    This is some fantastic, nuclear-grade salt right here.

  • Adding a Clear Visual Cue to Wormhole Mass Stages in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Thor Kerrigan wrote:
    As it is right now, the visual "cue" we have is a one-time shrinking animation when a mass threshold is reached. However, with no reference point, it is impossible to tell the mass stage without actually showing info on it.

    Up until the last patch, there actually was a sound cue (the RRRHHHHH... RRRRHHHHH... annoying breathing sound) when more than 50% of mass was reduced but appears to have been removed now.

    Since an "end-of-life" hole has a clear flickering animation, size restrictions are colour-coded, WH classes have specific nebulae backgrounds, it would make sense that the final piece of vital information about a wormhole should also be clearly accessible without needing to right-click + show info. As it stands now, all of the above are nice eye-candy rendered irrelevant since anyone travelling through still has to show info in order to check the mass situation.

    What I propose is the following:

    Mass more than 50% (stable) - no special animation
    Mass less than 50% (disrupted, not critical yet) - slight, sporadic yellow-ish lightnings emanating from the wormhole
    Mass less than 10% (critical, verge of collapse) - regular, red-hued lightnings indicating imminent collapse

    I believe this would make for a much more immersive and intuitive experience when travelling through wormhole space, and the good old "show info" still remains to learn about the visual cue for new players.

    Also, while we are at it, the nebulae for C1 and C2 are very difficult to distinguish... Which usually is not an issue since regular hole connection will be green (C1) or white (C2), but the blue frigate-only wormholes make this distinction very difficult. I therefore suggest adding a slight blue-ish stripe to C1s similar to the dark purple one found in C3s.


    A mass-based visual effect is already ingame - the wormhole "model" shrinks when the wormhole is at half-mass and again when it is VoC. The "breathing" effect also still exists ingame so far as I am aware, you may want to adjust the advanced volume sliders.

    That said - I'm not against having some sort of special intermittent visual effect for wormhole mass percentage, as it is a little hard to memorize the visual size of each stage especially since we often play at varying zoom levels.

  • New camera now in opt-in Beta on TQ in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I'm not sure if this is strictly related, but ever since enabling the camera beta on my offset multi-monitor setup my capacitor readout will move from where I anchor it when I dock/undock.

    I have a 1680x1050 main screen and a 1280x1024 secondary to the right, and am spanning the EVE client across the two at a resolution of 2960x1050. The capacitor readout will either move itself as far as posibble to the left or right of the main screen when I undock from a station, instead of remaining relatively centered; this issue only occurs on a multi-monitor client with the camera beta enabled. It seems like it's trying to recenter itself relative to the total resolution at times, and other times the readout fails to offset itself from the bottom-left corner.

    E: This is on TQ, have not tested on Sisi.

    E2: Also, zoom level seems to be consistently reset to very far distance on gate/wormhole jump.

  • Feedback for the update to the "buff bar" in your Ship HUD. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I see what you're going for here, but even as someone who is not colorblind it's a little hard to tell the difference between the two leftmost icons.

    My thoughts: Unshade the icons, make every icon have a cycle timer of the appropriate color. Blue for good things, red for bad. Icons could sit on a colored background, and where icons go should be directional - negative effects to the left of the centerline, positive effects to the right.

  • Vote Xenuria: CSM 11 - Reform The CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Bernie Nator wrote:

    What are the current issues with wormholes?


    Not the candidate, but as someone relatively knowledgeable wrt w-space, I'd say that w-space in general is actually in a pretty good spot, aside from a large Russian carebear coalition being in control of all of the best C6 space.

    Most wormhole players, as far as I am aware, are content with the content available in w-space and would much rather CCP leave w-space well enough alone.

    Also, in regards to the topic at hand, I support Xenuria's CSM campaign both for his desire to reform the CSM to be more effective a tool for CCP and players alike, as well as his desire for nicer shoes and some goddamn headgear in EVE.

  • Gevlon Goblin for CSM XI in Council of Stellar Management

    Gevlon Goblin wrote:
    Grr CSM Grr Goons Grr CCP Grr Grr Grr


    I have already unvoted.

  • [WTS j105934] c6-c6 magnatar wormhole entrance "Nova" in EVE Marketplace

    50,000,000 ISK.

  • Dev blog: Building your Citadel, one block at a time in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
    The loudest members of a group do not always make the best representatives of a group. I am still pretty strongly against there being no form of asset safety in w-space, as it's a bit of a kick in the teeth. Yes, yes, I know, I know, POSes currently drop loot as w-space Citadels are planned to. That's not the point. Citadels are replacing POSes and in k-space they get total, complete asset safety. W-space gets none whatsoever.

    I have repeatedly suggested that what does not drop from a Citadel in w-space should not be destroyed, it should be impounded and recoverable in that system by deploying another Citadel.

    Alas, you actually have to air your feedback for it to be taken into account. Why do you think we post so much?

    Actually, that's a bit of a misdirection; Goons love to post. It's our nature.

    The thing with k-space is that no one actually uses a POS for long-term storage. You'd be a fool to do so when outposts, or at the very least, NPC stations are so close by. Any attempts by CCP to rebuke asset safety in nullsec would be met by players shrugging their shoulders and evacuating to the nearest NPC station. CCP reneged on citadel destruction podding everyone logged off inside for the same reason; players would simply use the tedious, but guaranteed safe tactic of logging off in space to circumvent the risk.

    Wormhole residents, OTOH, have to put their assets at some risk due to the design space of the, er, space. Those who spoke against asset safety in wormholes wanted to preserve that. Whatever side of that argument you're on, you have to admit that allowing asset safety in j-space would be a paradigm shift for the status quo.


    I have aired my feedback, it being ignored or overlooked isn't something I can really do much about.

    As to the latter point - well, sure, it's a paradigm shift but all of Citadels is in a way. If my suggestion were to be implemented, it wouldn't detract from what the more predatory sandcastle-kickers in w-space want while allowing those who might have their sandcastle kicked over a decent chance at their stuff not all being gone or stolen.

    Stuff that doesn't drop is stuff that attackers wouldn't be able to get their hands on anyway, so where's the harm in setting up so what would normally be destroyed is impounded and recoverable if people friendly to you deploy a new Citadel in that wormhole system. Hell, I'd even settle for two rounds of loot fairy magic; the first governs what drops and what doesn't, then what doesn't drop is either destroyed or impounded for possible recovery later.

    E: Terrible text flowchart.

    Citadel destroyed

    Loot fairy magic 1 ▶ Some stuff drops

    Some stuff doesn't drop

    Loot fairy magic 2 ▶ Some of the stuff that didn't drop is impounded

    Stuff that isn't impounded and didn't drop is destroyed.

  • Dev blog: Building your Citadel, one block at a time in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    Justa Hunni wrote:
    Querns wrote:
    Justa Hunni wrote:
    EvilweaselSA wrote:

    blow up the old one and use asset safety to automove


    Except of course if you are in a wormhole since only nullbears and other empire scum get asset protection.

    I can't actually tell if you're boasting or complaining, but in the latter case, you can blame the wormhole community for that being the case. Asset safety was originally going to apply to wormholes.


    Complaining actually Big smile I see some people saying that it was the "WH community" that demanded the removal of asset protection but actually what I've seen is when the plans were first made available, it was the whole "to recover you'll have to build another citadel in the same system to recover" that they were not in favour of. And of course, most of the WH people I've seen posting on this and otehr threads are not in favour of WH space being the only one where you will lose everything if your space castle goes boom. So not sure which part of the "WH community" to which you are referring.

    Now if they had offered a similar asset protection system as they did to everyone else, (i.e. your assets can be recovered at an NPC station for a price) instead of the ludicrious "you'll have to put up yet another citadel in the system where you lost the last one" maybe the WH community would have been more receptive. But then again, not like CCP is really supportive of small WH corps.

    This thread was where a vociferous portion of the wormholer community asked for full-loot citadels in J-space. As always, the forums sample only a tiny portion of the community.

    Though, no-teleport-to-k-space asset safety was always on the table.


    The loudest members of a group do not always make the best representatives of a group. I am still pretty strongly against there being no form of asset safety in w-space, as it's a bit of a kick in the teeth. Yes, yes, I know, I know, POSes currently drop loot as w-space Citadels are planned to. That's not the point. Citadels are replacing POSes and in k-space they get total, complete asset safety. W-space gets none whatsoever.

    I have repeatedly suggested that what does not drop from a Citadel in w-space should not be destroyed, it should be impounded and recoverable in that system by deploying another Citadel.

  • Dev blog: Building your Citadel, one block at a time in EVE Information Center

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Saede Riordan wrote:
    Chavez Domingo wrote:
    wasnt a large citadel at 80.000m³ that can fit into a orca... no need for a freighter than...


    Is this actually going to be the case CCP, or is it an oversight? I want to know whether I need to start building an in-system freighter or not. Dev blog says freighters needed to deploy a large, but by the volume an orca will be able to do it with currently listed value. I don't want to have to build a freighter in my wormhole but I will if I need to.

    Just yes or no on that. Do I need a freighter to deploy a large, or can I do it with an orca?


    Probably an oversight Twisted


    A simple yes or no will suffice. Is that 80k m3 figure correct or not?

  • Dev blog: Building your Citadel, one block at a time in EVE Information Center

    Soleil Fournier wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Aryth wrote:
    These seem awfully cheap at the medium level given their really small vulnerability window. Is there a concern we end up with a very spammable and essentially throwaway level of citadels?


    They are destructible, so the smaller sizes should be relatively spammable. Also remember 600m ISK it the base hull price.


    And you thought the sov grind was hellacious in dominion.

    Think about 20 medium citadels in a system you need to clear out. Each having a different vulnerability timer set for maximum trolling. That means 20 initial reinforcement fights, 20 command node huntings, 20 second reinforcement fights, another 20 command node hunting parties....the implications on the grind here are pretty scarry. Maybe not for highsec, but sov definately will suffer from this type of issue. Then think about the next 5 systems next to it that have the same setup, and that they won't ever go offline because the hulls don't take fuel. There are rich players/alliances out there that will do this, because it has been a strategy employed before with towers to wear out the opponent without ever fighting.

    A hard cap doesn't make sense. But I think the above scenerio should at least be discussed before the sov grind gets sent into overdrive.


    Citadels don't require anything except straight damage application to destroy.

  • Dev blog: Building your Citadel, one block at a time in EVE Information Center

    Saede Riordan wrote:
    Quote:
    A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended.

    CCPlease. Give us low-class wormholers so sort of break here. You're essentially saying that we'll need to build an otherwise completely useless freighter which will be trapped in our wormhole solely for the purpose of deploying large citadels. And make no mistake we need large citadels many of us have large numbers of capitals and we'll need places to put them. I get not wanting us to easily put up XLs, (not that it'd be easy anyway with the ISK cost involved), but come on.

    None of us are going to leave our capital fleets floating in space outside mediums, we just won't use these structures and we'll keep using towers. You have to give us some realistic option to store our capitals and telling us to build a two billion isk ship that we can't use for anything else is not realistic.

    Either make them fit into something other then a freighter, or give us a way to shove freighters through our wormholes. This feels like a slap across the face to low class space.


    As long as Larges have a volume equal to or less than 100k m3, it will be possible to deploy them from a max-cargo Orca.

    Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait for CCP to tell us exactly how much volume a Large Citadel will take up.

    E: Looks like Larges will actually be able to fit quite nicely into an Orca, see http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68671/1/Structurecompositioncomponent.png

    Chavez Domingo wrote:
    What about SMA*s? Do we get a Corporate Shiphangar or something like that? Many W-Space Corps are sharing their ships with their Corp


    I believe the corporate offices will cover this use case.

  • Salvage Tugs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Donnachadh wrote:
    I showed your proposal for the cov-ops capable T2 variant to several members of the low sec corp my son is in and they immediately started to discuss fits and tactics on how your ship could be used to gain advantage. So even if you think it would not be all that useful outside of it's intended purpose there are obviously devious and twisted minds in the game that can see an advantage to it and that makes it a major concern that we would need to address.


    I'm sure there's a lot of devious uses that it could be used for. Being able to use it for devious, unintended things isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just depends on if those uses are "broken". I'm sure some of those uses could be made less viable or completely impossible by adjusting PG/CPU.

    As for the Noctis thing - I admit I have no good idea how to keep it a viable ship if salvage tugs were to be introduced. I'll think on it and maybe something will occur to me.

  • Salvage Tugs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    :shrug:

    Perhaps the Noctis deserves a more interesting role than it currently has. While it's a fine ship and it is excellent at what it does, fitting it only with salvagers doesn't take full advantage of all the bonuses it receives.

    Personally, I don't use a Noctis for much if anything - with an MTU, I don't need the ability to fit tractor beams en masse and a salvage destroyer does the job cheaper.

  • Salvage Tugs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Omnathious Deninard wrote:
    You should look at the Noctis.


    The Noctis is a good ship, but it runs into two problems:

    1) The tractor beam bonus at max skills is overshadowed by even a basic MTU.
    2) It's BC-sized, and not terribly agile.

    The only advantage of a Noctis over an MTU is that it can theoretically tractor 8 wrecks at once. A smaller ship with an explicit bonus to salvagers might rescue Noctises from their dusty hangars.

    Donnachadh wrote:

    To the OP I have to ask why?
    We have an excellent salvage ship in the Noctis.
    Current destroyers and even the cov-ops frigates make excellent salvage vessels for many of the more specialized applications.
    So I see no advantage or even a need for your ideas so -1

    Going with your ideas for the sake of discussion since these new ships would even further erode the usefulness of the Noctis and make it even more irrelevant how would you propose to counter that? What changes would you propose to the Noctis to keep it as the premier salvage ship in the game?
    I ask because even as one who uses a Noctis a lot your changes would likely mean parking the Noctis in a dusty corner of a station somewhere never to be used again.

    Another concern I have with a cov-ops capable destroyer is the potential for the abuse factor. Even with 4 highs a cov-ops dessie could become a very powerful ship so how would you propose limiting them to prevent this and only allow them to be used for the intended purpose as salvage vessel? Or is it possible that a cov-ops dessie is the goal of this post and you are trying to hide that by presenting it as a new salvage ship idea?


    Addressing your points in order:

    Why? Why not? The Noctis isn't exactly easy for a new player to get into or afford, and it's not at all suited for use in hostile areas without a robust defender nearby. Salvage tugs, being destroyer-sized, would be better suited for getting in, getting the good stuff, and getting out.

    I'm not sure how to avoid this ship class overshadowing the Noctis even further than MTUs already do. You make a good point.

    As for the covops version, I hadn't quite thought about the potential for unintended use. I don't see much of a use case for a covops combat destroyer, with only 4 turrets and no bonuses to any sort of weapons system, it's already ill-suited to anything but initial tackle - which the other covops-capable ships, including the Prospect, are already quite capable of on their own. I know there are a number of Venture gimmick fits out there. Napkin math says that the most you'd be able to eke out of the ship is about 322 DPS with perfect skills, Polarized Light Neutrons loaded with Void S, and 5 Augmented Hobgoblins. Perhaps a lack of targeting delay reduction would do enough to make a combat-fit T2 Salvage Tug only viable as a stupid gimmick fit?

Forum Signature

Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave