EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2015-05-12 00:53
  • First Forum Visit: 2015-12-23 01:24
  • Number of Posts: 15
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 19

Solidus Obscura

Security Status -1.5
  • Nasty-Boyz Member since
  • Ghost Legion. Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Turret Damage Formula in EVE Gameplay Center

    Thanks for the replies. I think I am still missing something. See below for the simulation spreadsheet I have created:

    Google Sheet - Simulation

    I've done the same graph in pyfa but pyfa is having higher damage numbers at the front end of the optimal range:

    Pyfa Damage

    Is there something in my formula that is incorrect? From memory, the pattern in the spreadsheet seems more accurate as large turrets have trouble hitting smaller moving ships within the optimal. The formula I am using is from within pyfa itself (eos\graph\fitDps.py) which is based on the UniWiki formula.

    EDIT: I dun goofed, pyfa is also taking the web and grapple into account. Taking those mods off makes the damage graphs equivalent. Yay.

  • Turret Damage Formula in EVE Gameplay Center

    Hi all!

    I am working on a tool that calculates DPS across different ammos/turrets based on a target (much like pyfa's damage graph). Having trouble recreating the damage graph for a set of turrets. Uniwiki for this has a disclaimer saying the article requires an update. Would anyone have the current average DPS formula for a turret?

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    As you may have seen in the May Monthly Economy Report, there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is primarily due to NPC Bounties.

    You don't specify whether this is from Carrier ratting versus VNI/Ishtar ratting.

    Consider the following:

    • Carrier ratting is an extremely focus intensive activity, especially after the nerfs to fighter sig radius. You cannot effectively multibox carriers.
    • VNI/Ishtar ratting is the exact opposite. You warp to site, drop drones, orbit whatever, and in a period of time, the site is clear. This lends itself to 23/7 passive ratting and easy multiboxing.

    I am struggling to understand why you are nerfing carriers for this reason. If it's really a PVP nerf, then say it's a PVP nerf. Don't beat around the bush with what we all perceive as fake news. And if it is true that carriers are the problem- give us some numbers. A breakdown of NPC bounty income from VNIs/Ishtars versus Carriers. And if it's skewed as you're implying, then you'll have a lot more support.

    Additionally, carrier ratting generates some of the highest ISK/hr for people that don't significantly multibox. If you nerf this hard then those folks would move to less riskier Incursions in HighSec. This would be extremely bad for the game.

  • A Vote for Solidus is a Vote for Multiboxing! in Council of Stellar Management

    In response to Cochise Chiricahua:

    Suicide ganking is definitely a valid style of play and one that I will always support in this game. It is an important part of the game that makes it feel dangerous and forces players to think about their decisions, especially when hauling extremely valuable cargo.

    Historically, CCP has made suicide ganking increasingly difficult, especially with changes to freighter EHP. I believe the mechanics around performing a suicide gank and acquiring the loot from the gank are currently sound. As a multiboxer, I also support this style of play (and you'll soon have another crazy multiboxer to deal with :P, unless I am elected of course- cause :rip: my time).

    The only thing I would advocate change for is the ability to perma tackle a target through bumping. Bumping is a legitimate mechanic, I feel, to prevent targets from escaping through a gate. But as a mechanic to prevent a warp out, for an excessive period of time, I feel is unfair. Suicide ganks should be coordinated when the opportunity arises, not at the complete leisure of the gank team. I would like CCP to implement the three minute warp out mechanic they had previously proposed to force extra effort to keep a target 'permanently tackled.' However, I would balance this against the freighter EHP buffs that recently occurred (reverse them).

    I would like to see more man-mode suicide ganks on the gates but I don't feel it should take the increased number of gankers/DPS that the EHP buffs gave.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters.

    This is just going to make PVEing in Carriers a lot more frustrating. How will you make it easier for players to see that their fighters are taking significant damage? Right now 1-99% is just a single color.

  • A Vote for Solidus is a Vote for Multiboxing! in Council of Stellar Management

    DeMichael Crimson wrote:

    Thanks for the reply.

    Just the general overall aspect of Faction standings in-game which basically affects everyone. I just wanted to know your viewpoint about it and what changes you'd propose.


    As a mechanic it makes sense to have but it feels very archaic and there are limited ways to improve standings. Some ways are very esoteric and it's a grind if you're starting from low/negative standings. One thing to consider further is that things like markets and industry are moving away from NPC stations to citadels and these standings are having less relevancy. Perhaps if they were linked to other mechanics, like LP purchases/discounts (I think they have some impact but only for enabling purchase), it would help make them a bit more relevant - but this would be a low priority thing for CCP, I would assume.

  • "Meet your Candidates" CSM 12 in Council of Stellar Management

    Thank you very much for doing this. Outstanding work for the community!

  • A Vote for Solidus is a Vote for Multiboxing! in Council of Stellar Management

    Gaara's sniper wrote:
    judging by other time someone tried to go to csm as a multiboxer supporter it didn't go well.

    Unless you have MC vote brigading you .Maybe you have a chance then. You have my vote then.

    Vote for folks you feel would do the best job, not who would get vote brigaded :P

    Solidus wrote:
    Who are you and why did you steal my name?


    DeMichael Crimson wrote:


    My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

    Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


    Would you mind to clarify this? Do you mean in relation to Faction Warfare and the main four races, or in relation to Corporations/Missions and the effect of the standings?

  • A Vote for Solidus is a Vote for Multiboxing! in Council of Stellar Management

    commander aze wrote:
    So i run 4 of 10 accounts in an incursion. Now its muscle memory at this point but its also fair. With scroll time and that I rarely if ever have actions effect more than 1 account per second i think or i believe their system would be smart enough to see broadcasting happen serverside as its not easy to hit for instance vanguard incursions 10 accounts in the same 2 second window.. i run 4 screens and move the cursor between them doing everything manualy. I feel that this is fair as it falls in the EULA as fair game to do. Due to the past controversy over isboxer and key broadcasting what makes you think ccp would be amenable to this change considering the long term bans people have recieved over it currently? Should these people have their accounts reactivated retroactively?

    It depends really - when you use a lot of accounts you want to be efficient. As long as you're not broadcasting, you can still get "good" enough to get multiple character actions out per tick. I would be able to bring these perspectives to CCP in a more direct fashion as part of the CSM. Ultimately it is up to CCP to enforce their EULA but if they were to review borderline cases and understand what could be done, legally, they could reconsider their choices. CSMs can only advocate and that would be my plan. :)

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Another issue with the further nerfing of excavator yield is that the price of excavators are way out of proportion compared to what you're getting. There could be a bit of market manipulation going on but the prices are a FAR FAR cry from costing approximately 1-2 Hulks each.

    Fozzie... I believed in you. I personally shouted thank you at your presentation and shook your hand at Vegas for the prior Rorqual changes. Don't break my heart man, don't break it.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center


    The PANIC change sucks, what if a Rorqual is caught off a station?

  • A Vote for Solidus is a Vote for Multiboxing! in Council of Stellar Management

    commander aze wrote:
    So key braodcasting isnt likely to return. As it opens up a can of worms for botting and non human controlled input. What are your throughts on this.

    Also i run 4 accounts in incursions with no isboxer or anything. Its easy enough to do without it.

    Yeah, input broadcasting is very close to botting, albeit some MMOs allow it currently (WoW to my knowledge is one of them). I don't intend to advocate for change on that particular aspect. There are methods out there to quickly and efficiently perform actions on multiple clients legally (Eve-O Preview, a hotkey that opens the next window) - but the concern I have is that CCP reviews this activity server side rather than client side. What happens when a multiboxer gets good enough to get those inputs in on a single or two-tick cycle? This is what I want to look at further.

  • A Vote for Solidus is a Vote for Multiboxing! in Council of Stellar Management

    Reserved as that's the thing to do.
    /avoids reserving 10 times per habit.

  • A Vote for Solidus is a Vote for Multiboxing! in Council of Stellar Management


    Welcome prospective disciples of the Rorqual. While I normally would begin with a lengthy sermon as to why the Rorqual is the finest ship in EvE and that all capsuleers should aspire to fly one, I'm pretty late in posting this as it is! First, think about these questions:

    • Are you satisfied with flying a single Ishtar for your dank ratting ticks or do you find it necessary to AFK five of them on all the Havens in the system?
    • Do you hate HiSec incursion community voice comms so much that you have or will build an incursion fleet to clear sites all by yourself?
    • Do you believe proper 'solo PVP' is baiting Svipuls into Medium plexes where your five recon alts are happily orbiting the beacon?
    • Do you like to drop 10 or more bombers on hapless Provi ratters or AFK freighter pilots?
    • Do you believe that unless you're making more than 1Bn ISK/Hr you're playing like a casual?

    If your answer to any of the above questions are yes or at least maybe, keep reading.


    Do you enjoy multiboxing? I do. A lot. And there have been a lot of changes and new restrictions on multiboxing over the past few years - such as no broadcasting and partial window overlays. Some of these changes are fair and I have zero intent on trying to change the current EULA. However, there is a stigma that sometimes comes to multiboxers - a belief that they may be botting or skirting the rules. Suicide gank multibox pilots getting banned for nebulous reasons. Who on the CSM have stood for and defended multiboxers? How many times was multiboxing referenced in the last CSM summit?

    Well, if you vote for me, I'll stand for you!

    About Me

    I started out in E-Uni doing the normal new player things and eventually joined Mercenary Coalition to participate in my first large scale conflict since starting to play EvE. But it wasn't enough just being a single DPS or Logistics pilot in fleets. I needed to do more. Whether this was bringing in alt Links, spreading out cynos, readying a capital alt - I wanted to do more than just F1. It was around the middle of last year I saw a post on r/Eve claiming that you could make 1.2B an hour multiboxing Vanguard sites. Welp, here I am doing that and a bunch of other things with far too many accounts. I've done region-wide cloaky camping and salt mining, ice-belt clearing in one and a half hours mining (PRAISE THE RORQUAL!), infuriating Griffin swarms, 165 p0-p2 planets (yeah, that only lasted a month), and dropping 10 bombers on 'Snakes. I've got a few more things in the cooker as well (the Kusions can't have all the fun).

    I've also been involved with our Alliance Tournament team in addition to shooting stuff for profit, building API tools using XML through ESI (happy to share if requested), promoting mining cultural revolutions, and battled the menace that is ESS drama. So while I can hold the door on negative impacts to multiboxing, I also have enough experience to discuss other aspects of the game and relate back to the playerbase.

    Why I stand out

    There are a lot of big names on the ballot and four fewer spots to fill - I get it, I've got my work cut out for me. However, if you consider my platform and my accomplishments, some things stand out: Organizational capability, exposure to a wide range of EvE, and unadulterated efficiency. I feel these are strong attributes of an effective CSM member. And if you've been paying attention, I have a ton of bloody characters. I'm pretty damn invested in this game, so it's in my great interest to see it continue to grow and continue to be engaging. This is why I am running for CSM and why you should vote for me.

    Thank you for reading!

    (Side Note: Late Thread Posting, the Application was submitted within the deadline)


    Reddit - Elowenn (Preferred)
    Discord - Solidus#1465 (Personal Channel for CSM: https://discord.gg/cSbZq5C )

  • The XML endpoints in CREST and characterContactsRead in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Question: Not sure if it was an oversight but with the xml endpoints moving the CREST, it seems the contacts one wasn't moved. This makes sense because there is already a 'characterContactsRead' endpoint BUT the xml feed also gave corporate and alliance contacts. Is this something that will be available in CREST?

Forum Signature