EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-07-04 01:10
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-06-18 00:44
  • Number of Posts: 382
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 289

Thead Enco

Security Status 5.0
  • Thunderwaffe Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Hy Wanto Destroyer wrote:
    Do you understand the impact this will have on lowsec?

    Most of the larger lowsec alliance rely on passive moon income and have less isk making opportunities on an alliance level than nullsec allainces which was outlined on some reddit posts made during the leaks and an article on crossing zebra,

    No one in lowsec is gonna mine so rip lowsec????

    Yea, AFKSec is still a go since those same people will still be waiting for their super spawns.

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

    Cade Windstalker wrote:

    And that's just what we can extrapolate from publicly available data. Given Fozzie's comments in this thread it seems like most people are using Rorquals like they're at practically no risk at all. This shows in how big of a deal people are making out of the tiny risk imposed by the changes to PANIC activation.

    NO killboards ISD Max Trix

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

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far!

    I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes:

    There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:
    1. The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets.
    2. The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets.
    3. The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack.

    Use case #1 is the one that we've heard the most concern about from players and the one that many people have been suggesting alternate fixes for in this thread. However use case #3 is probably the most important one to study to help identify the best possible solution to all three problems.
    In the context of use case #3, simultaneous use of the PANIC module and entosis link isn't the problem as that is already disallowed. You can't activate the entosis link while the PANIC module is running and activating the PANIC module breaks the entosis connection and halts the capture progress. However even with these restrictions the sequential use of entosis links and the PANIC module can be very powerful. A Rorqual can start capturing the node and only activate PANIC if it comes under too much fire to tank normally. Then the PANIC module provides the time needed for a reinforcement fleet to arrive at the command node and drive off the attackers. In this case the issue isn't that the PANIC module can be used at the same time as the entosis link, but that the Rorqual can use the entosis link and keep the PANIC module as a "get out of jail free" option as needed.

    Keeping the three troublesome use cases above in mind, there are three core reasons we were attracted to the idea of approaching the problem with a situational PANIC activation restriction rather than through a similar restriction to what we already use with triage and the networked sensor array. I'll list them below in order from least important to most important:
    • There's value in trying to reach the same goal through a smaller number of rules that players will have to remember. Three separate rules (one for ewar, one for cynos and one for entosis) could probably be used to solve these problems but if we have an opportunity to reach the same goal with fewer exceptions we'll generally prefer the single rule.
    • If possible, we would like to preserve the use of both cynos and ewar by mining Rorquals while they are defending their fleet with the PANIC module. Cynos serve a valuable purpose in helping them get support fleets to their position, and ewar helps them present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period.
    • Most importantly, we were concerned that if we tried to solve the tackle and cyno use cases by restricting those functions while the PANIC module is running (similarly to how ewar is restricted while triage is active) or even by removing the ability to lock targets while the PANIC module is active, we would simply shift the problem into something more similar to what we're seeing with entosis right now. Although such restrictions would prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing with PANIC active, it would not prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing and then saving the PANIC activation as a "get out of jail free" card in case they come under too much fire. Considering the fact that people have the option of using multiple Rorquals and that even threatening a Rorqual's tank requires a fair amount of DPS to start with, this end result would be only a slight improvement on the current situation.

    As for the reasoning for this proposal including a target lock restriction instead of a proximity check, the main motivation is to avoid the server load associated with large area proximity checks. For people concerned about jams and damps, remember that the Industrial core provides 100% ecm resistance and 75-80% damp resistance while active. This proposal does mean that Rorquals will be more vulnerable after finishing the last rock in a belt and while moving, but our current impression is that those limited periods of extra vulnerability have the potential to generate interesting gameplay. It’s also worth remembering that the Rorqual has a very significant set of defenses even without the PANIC module.
    We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one.

    TLDR; Instead of recreating the god damn wheel just change the values on offensive mods so you can't fit them on the Rorqual in the first place.

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

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback.

    PANIC Module:
    We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations.
    To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change:
  • Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.

Why not just change values on tackle mods so you can't fit them on the Rorq in the first place. This change is a half ass attempt.

  • Singularity: Requests for account reactivation in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Please reactivate Thead Enco and Kobal81 on sisi tia.

  • June release 118.6 - General feedback in EVE Information Center

    CCP Darwin wrote:
    Kremlath wrote:
    1) No, we're not adding options to the options menu because that makes things 'complex'

    I commented to point out that requesting an additional option toggle is not as helpful as explaining why the feature bothers you, because the graphics software team (my team) is currently working on simplifying the graphics settings options.

    A different team than mine is responsible for the docking animation, and despite that they haven't posted here, they are reading all of the feedback.

    FYI you'll be gone 6 account''s in 30 days. I have no problem pissing off in The Division for the time being. o7

  • June release 118.6 - General feedback in EVE Information Center

    CCP Darwin wrote:
    [quote]As if one more menu tab in the ESC menu would be the end of the world. If they actually researched it I'm betting a significant number of EVE customers would be happy with one or more additional ESC menus that would provide toggles for over a dozen or more "features" that the customers actually hate. The issue is the Dev's don't like us pushing back.

    Quite the opposite: I feel that it's very valuable for the developers of new features, like the docking animation, to hear what you have to say, which is why I encouraged continuing to post.

    If they actual read the sisi fourms they would know the dock animation is utter **** and they should feel bad about that.

    Also p.s. Starscream confirms no vouch's for Riot for anyone at CCP.

  • June release 118.6 - General feedback in EVE Information Center

    CCP Darwin wrote:
    As if one more menu tab in the ESC menu would be the end of the world. If they actually researched it I'm betting a significant number of EVE customers would be happy with one or more additional ESC menus that would provide toggles for over a dozen or more "features" that the customers actually hate. The issue is the Dev's don't like us pushing back.

    Quite the opposite: I feel that it's very valuable for the developers of new features, like the docking animation, to hear what you have to say, which is why I encouraged continuing to post.

    When people ask for a toggle to turn a feature off, usually they are really saying they'd like the feature removed entirely but think that an option toggle is a more reasonable request. Our focus, though, is usually on trying to make something new like the docking animation a positive for more people.

    That's why I asked for posters who might say "Add a switch!" or "Take it out!" to instead explain what they don't like about it. Maybe it could be different in some way that wouldn't make you feel that way but doesn't take us back to a black screen or a loading bar for these session changes, and it helps if you offer us thoughts that can help us get there.

    Of course, taking it out, or even adding a switch, are always last-resort options, but they're just something we prefer not to do if we think we can find a better spot for the feature that more players will appreciate.

    Importantly: Team TriLambda, Eve's art and graphics software team, (mostly) maintains the graphics settings menu but camera (including docking animation) and general UI development is handled by Team Psycho Sisters. That's why I didn't address specific feedback in my earlier comment.

    As if pages of statements by dozens of others doesn't detail the issues? Seriously???

    Two people saying a thing have a louder voice than one. Just because someone else has said a thing doesn't mean someone else may not want to offer the same feedback a different way. I don't want to encourage anyone who feels strongly to keep their feedback to themselves.

    and removed the blue light transition when using a Jump Bridge.

    This is not an intended change, and the jump animation will be restored as soon as possible.

    Does anyone at CCP even read the sisi forums?. If you know ahead of time you going to have some game play issues why bother adding those changes to the game when it will only cause you heartburn and grief on the forums? it's like you guys like wasting time for no reason.

  • Anyone else find the docking/undocking thing annoying? in EVE Communication Center

    CCP Darwin wrote:
    Aramatheia wrote:
    Even at the best of times from the start of that transition where the ship disappears to gaining access to station facilities has increased by at least 20 seconds for me.

    Can you bug report this by pressing F12 and clicking the Report Bug button?

    Please mention in your bug report whether you have "Download everything" checked in your launcher settings when you start the game.

    Darwinism at it's finest. And you wonder why no one is resubbing. gg

  • June release 118.6 - General feedback in EVE Information Center

    CCP Darwin wrote:
    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    7 pages in 12 hours and much of it requesting ONE (docking animations - ON / OFF) thing be altered.

    Our focus with the settings menu right now is on reducing complexity, rather than adding it. Generally, we won't add a toggle for a new graphic feature unless it is too heavy for low-end machines, and even then we'd prefer to tie it to an existing setting.

    However, your feedback about what you do or don't like about the docking animation can help direct future iteration on it, so if it bothers you, please let us know specifically why.

    Seriously you might as well of named this patch "Incarna" because it holds the same value as WiS, NOTHING. it contributes nothing to internet space ships. I want to quickly jump in and jump out of my ships not watch a short film while station spinning. Remove the feature and bring back the old docking animation. The feature is annoying has hell. It's like there nothing else in the game that needs improving (Sarcasm).

  • Gunjack Discussion Thread in EVE Communication Center

    DaReaper wrote:
    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    I find this announcement particularly interesting.
    CCP cannot even manage to maintain EVE properly (going to vacation after the most profound game change in years? Really?) and have failed to maintain and advance DUST properly. Even these 2 projects (ignoring WOD as it's already dead) were too much for CCP to handle. Now they want to turn DUST into Legion and make that go totally awesome for sure, and attempt to develop Valkyrie. These are already 2 things more than CCP was able to handle in the past. And now they want to develop yet another game. This is going to be very interesting. Roll

    its a simple game, did not take much resources form it seem seems like. My guess is its using some scrapped valk code. If it was cheap to make, and a few devs did it as a side project then who cares. If it makes money, then it means more money for ccp, and thats a GOOD thing. CCP needs to release more unfinished games or they go under if eve goes under.


  • A major event that would affect all of eve universe in EVE Communication Center

    Proposed Lore Extinction Level Event : Jove Invades empire space

    Step 1: The Jove Navy make Jita 4-4 their "Beach head" as a result system security status is reduced to .1
    Step 2: Approx within 24 hrs after Command and Control systems are setup,All of Concord is laid to waste.....
    Step 3. The Amarr Navy make a valiant attempt to counter the Jove at the Amarr Homeworld, but are quickly put down to the sword, as result the empress is made a slave and the rest of the ammarian society are forced to leave their homes as refugees to Minmatar Space.

    Step 4. The Jove are now your overlords within all of the 4 empires.......

  • BREAKING NEWS 250b THEFT from Goonswarm in EVE Gameplay Center

    Held der Finsternis wrote:

    Former Goonwaffe member Globby stole 250b from Warr Akini, head of Goonswarm's Ministry of Love. Globby is now one of Black legion's newest recruits.

    More details to follow on www.heroesofhighsec.com

    Pocket change....

  • Straw poll on Super Carrier changes in EVE Communication Center


  • +1 to have the option of Old/New UI [Enable Feature] in EVE Communication Center

    Aurelius Valentius wrote:
    Just like the subject: +1 if you want to have CCP have both the Old/New UI as a toggle feature in settings.


    -9, obligatory "Adapt or Die"

  • BoB? in EVE Communication Center

    Merovee wrote:
    What are the old BoB folks up to these days? Blink


    Whatever is left of them are currently in NCDOT

  • CCP Greyscale fired? in EVE Communication Center

    Xenocry wrote:
    About 38 mins in on the SoZ podcast it's claimed that Greyscale is officially gone from CCP. Confirm?

    INB4 Bobmon takes the bait........

  • sold in EVE Marketplace

    Hurley wrote:
    Currently in Jita in +5 Clone.

    Perfect Combat Leadership, Gunnery (Capital), Armor, Doomsday, Jump Drive, Jump Portal, Agility... etc. etc. you get the idea. Amarr Titan V, Minmatar Titan V in 2 days.


    Password: 420

    Offer 40 bil,

    Snip, Refrain from discussion in a sale thread - ISD Atomic Dove.

  • Dev Blog - A new look for EVE’s UI – feedback needed! in EVE Information Center

    CCP Arrow wrote:
    Lando Cenvax wrote:
    Sweet! Cool

    But please really make sure this is ready for HighDPI-Screens, especially scalling the UI to 200% -without getting blurry icons. because of too low icon resolution. Also, please make EVE truely Retina-Ready on OSX, so we can run it windowed (without getting eye-cancer)

    Keep up the good work! Blink

    Good point! One of the key reasons to move to iconic icons was to be able to draw them and store them in vector format and apply the effects they use through batches or dynamically in the client. This means all icons can be scaled infinitely to any size and taken through the batching process and will therefore be ready for 4K screens or other awesomeness the future holds.

    JUST TAKE MY MONEY! Big smile

  • Save Our Clones Initiative. in EVE Communication Center

    13kr1d1 wrote:
    Clones and clone costs have always been a part of Eve. They make sense in the scope of the game. They aren't a problem for anyone to pay off, ever. Anyone who can fly a T3 can pay off medical clones. Why would the empires simply hand out clones for free just cause of feels?

    First it was the removal of needed standings for certain game mechanics, now it's clone costs. If we don't halt this now, it'll be learning implants gone next, and then standings will probably go away altogether. Why is the original vision of Eve being torn apart? It was fine for 10 years.

    Let's not allow this Rhea patch to go through. Post here to save our clones.

    TLDR; Post with your main and Adapt or Die # HTFU