EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-02-19 20:56
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-08 07:24
  • Number of Posts: 484
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Suitonia

Security Status 3.1
  • The Deliberate Forces Member since
  • HYDRA RELOADED Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • The new D-scan sucks in Council of Stellar Management

    Can you tell me the particular issues you are having with the new D-Scan UI?

  • Assault Frigate Role Ideas in EVE Technology and Research Center

    A fitting reduction to nos could also be interesting as they all have utility highs, which would allow them to run 1x nos and perma tackle and help run tank vs cruisers, without really powering up Harpy Fleets.

    They are definitely too slow. I personally think they should swap speeds with Command Destroyers.

    Ewar Resistance or Control Resistance effects are interesting but you need to be really careful with these bonuses as they can become broken very easily. T3Ds already have Ewar Resistance on SS mode as well so this might not necessarily make them more unique.

    Defender Launcher bonuses could be a possibility with new bomb effects outlined at fanfest (RR bombs etc.)

  • Assault Frigate Role Ideas in EVE Technology and Research Center

    So we all know that Assault Frigates see very little use on Tranquility (outside burner missions of course). Gone are the days where Harpy fleets were the go-to junior FC and skirmish doctrine. Tactical Destroyers have taken over the previous role that Assault Frigates had. Fast Response, Low SP, Sub 50 million hulls for skirmish doctrines. Tactical Destroyers are not that much more expensive, while being easier to train into and having a lot more power for their cost. They’re also low mass and can go through the same small sized wormholes, and most are actually faster and more agile than Assault Frigates.
    I don’t think the ideal solution here is to give Assault Frigates more power through increasing their primary stats (EHP, DPS, Fittings etc.). People are soon to forget that Harpy Fleets were the nullsec staple junior doctrine before Svipuls and RLML Caracals were added to the game. We’ve seen a lot of power creep recently and I feel like Assault Frigates are actually in a good place in regards to their power level. They could use speeding up a little, but what they’re really lacking is a role that differentiates themselves from Tactical Destroyers or another skirmish cruiser doctrine.

    All Assault Frigates have a utility high so I think it would be interesting to build up a role involving that. Command Destroyers have already taken up the mantle of providing links for a fast mobile hull. I really like the idea of turning Assault Frigates into mobile Anti-Fighter ships. We’ve seen insane capital proliferation recently and there really isn’t a sub-capital counter to Carrier groups right now, I’m really worried that there will be no role or place for subcapital doctrines in the future, especially as CCP is tinkering with T3Cs which will mostly likely see a drop in power for them. The only real counter to Carrier groups right now are other Carriers or Dread Bombs.

    Some players are quick to point out that ECM is effective against stand alone carriers, but they’ve never really been in a big fight where dealing with 50+ Carriers means 150 Templar IIs on your overview, all of which have the exact same name ‘Templar II’ and move too fast to sort by range, making it next to impossible to coordinate ewar. Most ECM cruisers or frigates get 1-2 cycled by a single Carriers worth of fighters anyway so you lose them insanely fast in a real fight. The idea here would be, make Assault Frigates relevant at disrupting fighters, this in turn makes other anti-support sub-capitals relevant to kill Assault Frigates. Outside of ECM there aren’t many effective options for skirmish gangs to bring against Carriers.

    Assault Frigates have great resistances, while also retaining small sig from being a frigate. This makes killing them with fighters incredibly wasteful especially when the AFs have logistics. But anti-support cruiser options tend to deal with them effectively.
    Ideas;

    Flak Cannon - Just a stand-alone, one module limit highslot weapon that would deal around 600~ DPS to fighters. (For Reference, a 3x DDA Nidhoggur/Thanatos does 1.8k~ DPS with 3x FSU Is and 3x DDA IIs.) So this would be the equivalent of around 1 reasonable Air Superiority fighter. Obviously make it unusable against actual ships. This would probably be the most vanilla and easiest variation to understand. Although 10mn AB AFs or overtanked pure flak AFs could become a little too good with them.

    Flak Mode (terrible name) - A siege mode for AFs, that would increase DPS by 5-6x but prevent them from doing damage to real ships, fighters only. A short 30s~ cycle that has no speed penalty or RR penalty, but would maybe have a MWD/AB thrust penalty (like HIC bubble). The penalties of the mode should be based around allowing them to mitigate damage from fighters still (no speed or sig penalties, but maybe make props less effective) to make sure they get damaged by cruisers. This would be a little more complicated but easier to design around specific builds since your own ships damage and range is important, so 10mn/overtanked etc isn’t broken.

    I’m not sure what CCP can accomplish on the backend, but maybe giving AFs a huge reduction to fighter DPS but also boosting their signature radius at the same time so they get dumpstered by cruiser weapons could be an alternative.

  • Blood Raider Shipyards from Team Phenomenon (YC 119.4) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Quote:
    NPCs will currently pursue players around the system if the players warp away from the shipyard.


    This should be a feature, if you disturb them they should want you to leave the system Big smile.

  • Gila For 0.0 Angel Anoms in EVE Gameplay Center

    Hey Izzy. I think you'll be better off running a buffer fit for running Angel anomalies. It's been awhile since I've run Angel sites but I used to do use a Gila fitted as such;

    https://o.smium.org/loadout/private/139305/8803582603358633984
    You can also run them with a Vexor Navy Issue with the standard 100mn fit.

    Assuming you have Gallente Cruiser 5, A Gila has a slightly faster clear time and is a little less vulnerable to being attacked by other players (although you ideally shouldn't get caught) if you're active at the keyboard. A VNI is a lot more AFK friendly, since you don't need to use the Rapid Light Launchers to get the faster clears, it's also less expensive, by about 1/3rd of the cost, so again, more friendly to you doing something else and not paying 100% attention to intel if you do lose it.

  • The Like and Get Likes Thread - Renewed (Again) in EVE Communication Center

    DeMichael Crimson wrote:
    Well, here's the official list of members that will be CSM 12 :

    1- Steve Ronuken
    2- Rhiload Feron-drake
    3- The Judge
    4- NoobMan
    5- Jin'taan
    6- Innominate
    7- Vince Draken
    8- Yukiko Kami
    9- Suitonia
    10- Aryth

    I gotta say I believe the whole voting aspect for CSM is a complete and utter farce. Every single one of the Candidates I voted for didn't make it.

    DeMichael Crimson wrote:

    1- Gecko Hareka
    2- Claevyan
    3- commander aze
    4- boliano
    5- Roedyn
    6- bardghost lsu
    7- Eduard Teach
    8- Toxic Yaken
    9- Erica Mizune
    10- Scylus Black


    I've now completely lost faith in the system.

    CCP sux.

    Sad


    DMC


    My 1 Vote in an election that had 30k+ votes for 64 different Candidates didn't effect the entire election?
    CCP SUCKS FOR HAVING A DEMOCRATIC VOTE

  • [Summer] RLML and HML balance pass in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Th e problem is the burst damage killing most attack cruisers and similar anti support options while having twice the EHP as those options, please reduce the reload time to 30 seconds but reduce the clip size to 17 instead for T2. This retains almost identical Dps to now but allows ships like the rail Thorax, stabber, omen and other anti support ships to survive a reload.

    Also, please, please consider increasing the fittings because the main issue with rapid light ships right now is they can fit absolutely everything with no sacrifice, mid to long cruiser sniper ranges, close range turret burst DPS, with high EHP. Increasing the reload time won't address any of this. Most people ping and reload while in Warp in bigger fights.

  • Suitonia for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    Saint Lucifer wrote:

    Ah, you refer to our last dance together. If you recall, I said in local "want to go?". I never said "let's 1v1". Please keep the facts straight.



    I don't like to play word games and words lawyer with people. If I say something or someone else says something I take what they mean at face value, I don't twist my words and you do yourself discredit by doing so, next you'll be telling me that Jita scammers are all honest traders you just didn't ~read the rules~. Regardless of that, my point still stands in response to your post; I have nothing against people who play only to win and break agreements in eve, I don't have a problem with command bursts, alts, implants, drugs or any of that, but I reserve the right to make fun of them for their risk aversion privately on my own stream.

  • 119.3 General feedback (PC) in EVE Information Center

    Please allow the Directional Scanner and Probe Scanner filter hotkeys to be rebindable, removeable or contextualized. I use the 1-8 keys for other things and no matter where my mouse is on the screen it'll spam and go through the filters, it doesn't make sense for them to be global (and not when mouse is hovered over window like it used to be) because if you have both windows open at once the two will interfere with each other.

    Please fix this.

  • Suitonia for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    Cearain wrote:
    I agree its worthwhile to discuss these issues and sort it out. I have not heard anyone say it is a problem to have more neutrals than fw guys pvping in fw space.
    But let's say that it is the problem for whatever reason. The way to fix it would be to make the pvpers want to join fw. Why don't they join? Rabbit plexing is ridiculous but if you don't do it you will lose your system and be locked out. (so any measures that reduce rabbit plexing would probably help) Also you have more targets when you can shoot both militias. Making fw 1v1v1v1 would help with this quite a bit. But also if being in the militia meant that you had access to a real time intel tool that let you know what plexes were attacked, those who like to pvp in fw plexes would have a big reason to join fw instead of staying neutral. (more on that below)


    There is another FW CSM Candidate campaigning that the station lockouts don't matter anymore because of Citadels, So I'm surprised how split people are on this subject. I'll concede that players who run plexes in ships like 5x WCS punishers or unfit atrons with T1 guns are a bad thing and I'd like that changed or disincentived, but that's why I like the idea of accelerated progress for rolling back a timer for the opposite faction, or timer rollbacks. Again, I'm not opposed to real time intel if CCP can implement it in a UI friendly way like you mentioned, it's all about how much CCP is willing to invest in FW, I know Gorski Car campaigned hard for years but ultimately it was never on their roadmap, so having compromises that are easier to implement are also a good thing to have.


    Cearain wrote:

    Ok so there are 2 questions. 1) do most players go to null sec or fw or low sec neutral to start pvp? 2) Where should ccp direct them if they are going to direct them?


    I think it depends on what the person wants to do. I think if you're a solo pilot or maybe have a small group of inexperienced friends, FW is where those players look. Not everyone is willing to leave their corporation, there are several guys in highsec involved with Industry, Mission or Incursion groups for example, that like to try PvP every now and then and FW is the best fit for them, since it's logistically easy in empire space, is nearby, requires no standings/diplomacy to other groups; FW relies on far fewer macro skills and outside influences that solo/small gang PvP in nullsec requires. Some people like to get away from the politics of nullsec and FW brings that to them. FW is seen a bit more as 'casual fun' requiring less effort.

    Now if you want to just get content in gangs, sure Karmafleet/Pandemic Horde/Brave is probably better. It also provides you with far better finance opportunities than empire space.

    I don't know where CCP should direct players. Ultimately either of those options is going to be a better fit depending on the players. I think removing the WCS farmers from FW so you're more likely to get an actual fight will be good, and better UI (Live intel like you mention, or some kind of system where it encourages players to go somewhere for content) will also be better for FW content.

  • Suitonia for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
    07 Candidate!

    First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

    I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

    By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

    So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

    As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

    Regards,
    Cochise Chiricahua.



    Thanks for the reply.

    I think suicide ganking is a part of the game, and one of the things that makes eve the game it is. The feeling that you can be attacked at anytime even in highsec adds to the atmosphere. I do not feel like suicide ganking is an issue right now, and I'm happy with the balance at the moment. We've seen significant EHP buffs to both Freighters with the damage control tiericide and Orcas have been boosted recently, you can very easily get 700k EHP on an Orca and move things with it's corp hanger. On top of rebalanced DSTs. I've almost always done solo logistics for myself, as I tend to play solo and I've never been ganked, even moving 4-5b ISK at the time. You need to manage your risk, and use the proper tool for the job.

    Making someone looting a wreck that died through a criminal action get CONCORDED with a criminal flag doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It'll just end up with new players getting CONCORDED and will kill suicide ganking completely, as only the owner would be able to loot the wreck.

    If you want to vote for someone who wants to argue with CCP to nerf suicide ganking then I'm the wrong candidate.

  • Suitonia for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    Cearain wrote:
    Thanks for the response.

    The intel tool would need to let pilots know where timers are being run before the plex is captured - or the purpose is defeated. After they are captured its too late to defend them.

    I am not really sure why we would weaken the rollbacks to only work for militias. A very sizable percent of people in plexes are not in militias so this would insulate rabbit plexers from them. I am not sure why we would want to do that. Also I am not sure why a pvper should have to stay in the plex for it to roll back. Again it just seems to weaken the rollback effect. But any rollback is better than no rollback.

    I just question whether this weakened rollback alone will be enough to make it so you win sov by fighting rather than by running away.

    Its interesting that you refer to fw as part of the npe. I'm not exactly sure what defines the new player experience but how ever we define it is fine I suppose. My experience is that corporations like the one you are in now tend to give far more guidance to new players than any fw corp I have joined. Do you think fw should be more in the npe than null sec?


    If the majority of players PVPing in FW space are not in militias maybe that's a problem in itself, maybe what I'm describing is not a problem. I just like to play devil's advocate and seek out alternative suggestions as it's often the best way to get discussions going.

    FW gives players rewards if they don't get a fight, in a ideal situation you either get a fight or if you get "blueballed" you make money. Given the Plex mechanics insulating ship types, fights taking place in static environments and a metagame with little evolution, it's probably the 'easiest' PVP to get into. I don't think the FW should be refocused or changed to be more NPE, I just think FW is usually the place where people who get bored of PVE and want to try PVP end up looking first.

    The instant intel thing seems like it could be a bit too strong, and way too spammy? as someone just checking a plex would spam the intel and you wouldn't get too much use from it? You need to capture 150 plexes to take a system from 0 to 100% anyway. So it's not like someone can surprise flip a system. Again, if this is something FW players are deadset on, I'm happy to take it up, I just think CCP will be very hesitant with this, because of their recent focus on active scouting for intel (With Sov Entosis nodes/timers, Astrahus vulnerability timers etc.) Plex captured is already in the game as an option if you use API tools.

  • Suitonia for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    Ria NieyIi wrote:
    Not really a question, but I think you should bug CCP to introduce a hotkey for applying nanite paste to repair modules damaged from overheating. Should be a-la overheating itself. For example, shift+keypress starts/stops module overheat, control+keypress could start/stop nanite repair for the same module. Or whatever you bind it to.


    Yes this would be great, in regards to nanite paste, I'd also like to see 'cost to repair' when you mouse over a damaged module, we have a visual grey circle when its being repaired, but it would be nice when you're repairing a module it has an actual timer on it (like when reloading) when you mouse over the repairing module.

    It would also be nice if you could attempt to do a partial repair, in several instances I've had experiences where I had 100 or so paste, but my guns are damaged, it would be nice if I could just repair them to the level that I can do with my paste, instead of it completely failing, instead, I have to ungroup my guns and apply, cancel half way through and repeat, which is annoying.

  • Aryth for CSM 12 in Council of Stellar Management

    If I vote for you will you give me some iskies for my toonie so i can buy a dessie?

  • Suitonia for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    Cearain wrote:
    Thanks for offering some views on faction war. Gorski never would respond to players and certainly never responded to me when I was told to talk to him about fw.


    Thanks for the response, I definately aim to keep communication open as much as possible.

    Cearain wrote:

    1) what is your personal position on rollbacks and real time intel?


    I am certainly open to the idea of rollbacks and think that they would be an improvement over what we have now. My only concern with rollbacks is that it may allow pirate groups and outside forces influence and defend FW space. I like an alternative idea of speeding up reverse progress by say 4x.

    For example, a typical FW farmer is in a novice, he has gotten the 10 minute timer down to 5 minutes. A PVP player from the opposite faction warps in and he warps off. The PvP player now reverses his 5 minutes progress by 4 seconds every 1 second he is there, undoing his 5 minutes of progress in 1.25 minutes. I feel like this encourages people to fight, creates a sense of urgency and also prevents people from reshipping to hard counters because if they do, they lose their progress. While preventing outside forces like pirate groups and unaffiliated pilots from influencing the warzone as much.

    Regarding real time intel, I think adding in a live intel log about recently captured plexes would be a great idea to help players find content and defend plexes. You can already compare the contested % on the API every 15 minutes if you use a 3rd party tool, but this is not available to everyone. Would be nice to have a 'recently captured plex' option on the map, as well as a log in the FW UI listing the last 20 captured plexes, and maybe suppressable FW noticiations that militia pilots can have that send notifications whenever a plex is captured in a friendly system.

    Cearain wrote:

    2) regardless of your position will you at least ask ccp what happened? (Why did they promise this and then not deliver?) And ask if they still intend to keep their promise and if not why?

    BTW I asked the same questions of the another candidate and would be happy to hear the answers from others as well. This issue was a big issue for allot of fw players but since ccp never followed up many left fw.


    I will certainly ask CCP about undelivered FW features and encourage them to revamp FW since I think it's an important aspect of the NPE.

  • Let's talk about Suitonia's suggestions to improve FW in EVE Gameplay Center

    X Gallentius wrote:
    Darth Magic wrote:
    This has already been said, but I think the Tier system for rewards is bad. And I agree with the CSM wanting to get rid of it.

    Make it all Even instead... Rewards should be higher for higher ranked members of the militia, encouraging loyalty and participation.

    The Tiers give both sides a reason to push for action in the warzone.


    The problem with the Tier system as it stands is that it's not a carrot on a stick, it's a feast on a stick. T1 vs T5 is more than a 6x payout difference. When a T5 O-Plexer can make 160m/hour in a frigate, but his counterpart is lucky to make 30m/hour assuming both are uncontested, there is a huge difference, and instead of encouraging the horse to go faster, the rider simply gets on the other horse.

  • Suitonia for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    https://eve-nt.uk/article/2017-03-05-234956-CSM12-Candidate-Suitonia/

    Check out this EVE-NT article

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

    Thanks for interviewing me :)

  • Suitonia for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    DeMichael Crimson wrote:
    Suitonia wrote:
    DeMichael Crimson wrote:
    Hello,

    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.



    DMC


    I think faction standings have lost a lot of value (No longer needed for POS anchoring, Jump Clones etc. Their only purpose atm is for missions and market tax reduction). I'm not sure how to make them useful again without them being gimmicky.

    Thanks for the reply.

    Yes I agree, Faction standings have lost a lot of value and should be more meaningful than just to get missions. CCP never should have removed the need of Faction standings to anchor a POS in high sec space. In my opinion that was a big mistake.

    Currently the in-game aspects of Faction standings :
    Positive Faction standings are the only way to access Cosmos Agents (one time access).
    Positive Faction and Corporation standings are needed to access Research Agents.
    All other Agents only require minimal amount of Faction standing for access (-2.00 or higher standing).
    High Faction standings reduce Market Broker fees and Reprocessing fees in NPC stations.
    At -5.00 or lower Faction standing, Empire NPC's will attack when in their space.

    This game was founded on the premise of having a balance on 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences'. It takes time for players to ruin Faction standings and as such it should also take some time to repair those standings. In the past Characters use to be accountable for their actions in-game, now most everything has been dumbed down and turned into easy mode for the instant gratification crowd. That's something I don't want to see happen to Faction standings.

    I created and shared the 'Faction Standing Repair Plan' with the playerbase back in 2010. In my opinion players need more options available to repair negative Faction standings then what I've listed in 'The Plan' since most of those Event Agents can only be accessed once in the characters life. Most players in-game don't even read the forums so they don't know that guide is available. In fact repairing negative Faction standings is extremely tough on new players who haven't even learned the game yet since they can easily mess up their Faction standings right from the start without actually knowing it.

    I think the process of Faction standing repair should be implemented in-game to be more intuitive instead of being so obscure. All changes to Faction standings should be brought to the players attention with an on screen pop up message. Any action that would cause negative Faction standing should trigger an on screen pop up warning (with option to deactivate). All Anti-Empire missions should have a warning to alert players that accepting and completing those missions will incur negative Faction standings. An idea presented by others is to have Tags for Standings. Personally I don't really like the idea but if it's similar to Tags for Security, I guess it would be acceptable. Lastly CCP could add another group of NPC Agents to the in-game Agent Finder strictly for Faction standing repair, sorta like the proposal I have listed in my forum signature.

    Anyway, thanks again for the reply and good luck in the upcoming election.



    DMC


    Thanks for the reply and clarification, if I get elected I'll keep your suggestions in mind.

    Also look out for some interviews I did on podcasts such as Statecraft, Talking in Stations and about to record Declarations of War! :)

  • Suitonia for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    DeMichael Crimson wrote:
    Hello,

    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.



    DMC


    I think faction standings have lost a lot of value (No longer needed for POS anchoring, Jump Clones etc. Their only purpose atm is for missions and market tax reduction). I'm not sure how to make them useful again without them being gimmicky.

Forum Signature

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o