EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2010-11-07 02:14
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-01-21 18:39
  • Number of Posts: 58
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Tribal Trogdor

Security Status 5.0
  • Better Off Red Member since
  • Unspoken Alliance. Member since

Last 20 Posts

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

    Virtuozone wrote:
    Looks good except that I'm a little confused why the FAX is going to be able to neut/nos so much harder than the dread? (Didn't look too much into the titan or super) Just wondering what the reasoning is for this.

    Only gets a bonus to nos, not neuting

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    How is the transition going to be made from towers to refineries?

    Obviously you can just release them and all the towers stop working. I would imagine there would have to be a period where they both work while the refineries are produced in the proper quantity or RIP economy.

    If there's a tower on a moon currently, do those owners keep the right to mine the moon until either the tower dies or they put up a refinery?

    What of POS replacement? I know they'll still hold relevance for sov stuff like jump bridges and such, but once they're off the table for moon mining and reactions, their value is going to go down the toilet. Is the plan to do NPC buy orders for them in the future, and if so, would they be based on the value at the time? Or maybe the plan is to turn them into their input material items? The latter would probably be a better way to go

    . Main issue here is some people have tons of money tied up in reactions farms. They're going to want to liquidate what they have in towers, to buy refineries. And they're all going to want to do it at once because they have to keep things running/hold the moons until the day the new structures come out.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hi again folks. Thanks as always for participating in the thread.
    Let's do a bit of a Q&A to answer some of the questions we've been seeing come up repeatedly.

    Q: Will starbases (POS) be removed when this feature is released?
    A: No, the removal of starbases will be a gradual process and even with the release of refineries there will still be major starbase functions that are not yet replicated by new structures (cyno beacons, cyno jammers and jump bridges). We will have some news on the next steps towards the starbase phase out soon.

    Please do something with this as you release the refineries. Value of towers and their fittings used on rxn towers is going to tank as people swap their massive rxn chains out for these new structures. People will either have to get out of the tower game early to avoid massive investment value loss, or end up getting very little back if they don't. Either way it would screw with the T2 market as they either exit, or can't reinvest into the new structures when they come out.

  • [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.

    So, you had to stick arbitrary rules on an interceptor to make it fit in with how entosis works. Now you have to do arbitrary restrictions on the Rorqual because of entosis...Clear issue with the sov system aside, whats wrong with disallowing fitting both a panic and an entosis? That would solve issue 3

    Issue 2 isn't really an issue. Yes you can use it as a heavy cyno, but you say that it needs that to fill its role. You can't say its okay to make it be an invulnerable heavy cyno, but only if you're in an asteroid belt. That still lets people sit in belts, and be bait to cyno in more dudes. I can fit small autos to my tornado and kill frigs that think they got me. Its not meant for that, but sandbox. At the end of the cycle, if the attackers have more, the Rorq still dies.

    As for issue 1, you seem to only want to keep the tackle as a means to "present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period" but thats not the goal of the PANIC, correct? The goal is to keep your fleet and yourself alive. Because you're in a situation where you yourself cannot handle what's come to kill you. Its a defensive, oh **** module. Not a "haha, got you with my invulnerable tackle so my friends can come kill you" module. Same thing as issue 2. You cant be unhappy with it being invulnerable tackle, but only outside of belts. So its better to just give it NSA restrictions.

    Seems like two simple changes: No Entosis + Panic mod, and no ewar in panic. Issues 1 and 3 solved, issue 2 still out there in a sense, but again, its not major, and is necessary

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

    I have a good solution. Decrease the amount of minerals in all ores by 75%. Then you don't have to nerf the rorq anymore!

    But really, the whole infinite amounts of high end ores in a single sov system, regardless of its true sec is the problem. We need a more dynamic resource system to be in the right spot. Make people move around, spread out a little more, fight over systems that have more resources...something :D

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

    Enochia Starr wrote:
    I think the nerf is too high, the current problem is mineral prices... There's just so much supply with little demand, another B-R needs to happen so we can lose 200 titans and drive the prices back up. With the above mentioned from the other guy, we're already shelling out 10b in drones... Now you want to knock the yield? Hmm

    That's why they're lowering the supply

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

    Andrew Xadi wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    • Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.

    so if i jam a rorqual, it can't panic, if i catch a rorqual after it killed a belt, it can't panic, why can't you just make it so that you can't panic like 20 min after jumping?

    All they need to do is give it the system as the NSA. Cant use ewar while you have it running. Solves the problem, right?...Right?

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

    lanyaie wrote:
    Tribal Trogdor wrote:
    Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.

    So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here

    They are immune to ECM in industrial core

    Yes, but you don't technically have to be running the core to be relevant :P

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

    Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining.

    Maybe this issue will be addressed with drilling platforms, but can we get regular nullsec belts to not span over a range of 2k km? Makes doing stuff in orcas/rorqs pretty rough

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

    Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.

    So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here

  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center


  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Bubbles should definitely exist. They're rather useful in small/solo camping where you don't want to have to sit with a bubble ship, or otherwise don't have access to one.

    Should they decay? That depends. Do you plan to make them easier to kill? If so, no. Do you plan to make them more expensive? If so, no. But currently roaming through drone lands there are some systems with 20+ Large T2 bubbles on and around the gates in most systems. Each costing only some 20 mil and having 200k hp. Many of these systems are just empty, so they are more or less just a pain in the ass that nobody really wants to sit around and shoot for no gain/reward, which means pretty low risk of having to replace for people who drop them.

    As bubbles and interdiction currently are though, I think some special ships, like interceptors and yachts should be immune to them. Being able to get eyes on a gate/system without being pulled to a gate, especially with current 40km hic points and such is important.

    I think the current broken part of T3's with nullification is the ability to refit subsystems with a depot. You shouldn't be able to fly somewhere, with such incredibility low risk then refit to a full combat fit to do whatever it is you want (pve/pvp/other?) and then refit and leave again with almost no risk.

  • Dev blog: Monthly Economic Report - December 2016 in EVE Information Center

    CCP Quant wrote:
    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Usual question: Trade item value in citadels compared to stations?

    Funny story (bro), I added a graph for the top 20 trade stations/citadels and ran into unicode issues, since the citadels are all named something funny, and couldn't be arsed to figure it out... I'll give it a second try at some point soon (tm)

    Do we really want to be putting out how much business people are doing in a specific citadel? Seems kinda like giving everybody else just a little bit too much info there.

  • Better Off Red - USTZ - NPC 0.0 - PVP in EVE Corporations, Alliances and Organizations Center

    Better Off Red is looking for more USTZ players to come and PvP with us!

    We base out of Great Wildlands and typically go roaming through low/sov null to find fights. We're mainly a higher SP group, and are looking for others who can fly the variety of ships we go out in, and have the experience to fly them without having their hands held. Typical comms requirements of TS3 and non-terrible mic.

    If interested in some small gang roaming action, join channel "Better Off Red"


  • [US/EU][PvP] Unspoken Alliance in EVE Corporations, Alliances and Organizations Center


  • [US/EU][PvP] Unspoken Alliance in EVE Corporations, Alliances and Organizations Center

    Unspoken Alliance is currently a small gang PvP alliance looking for some active players/corps to come join us.

    Of the two current corps, one is more heavily USTZ based, while the other is EUTZ, so we do things throughout the entire day. We're a higher SP/Experienced group, so we're not looking for people new to either Eve or PvP.

    Most of the action takes place in Great Wildlands, Scalding Pass, Wicked Creek, and Molden Heath. We fly a variety of different fleets from kiting cruisers, to brawling battleships, to fast frig fleets. Most of our content is roaming, fighting other roamers, and some light sov stuff for the fights.

    If you're interested in this type of PvP and want some more info, either send me a mail or join channel "Better Off Red" and we'll get you sorted.

  • First test of new command bursts in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    121209 wrote:
    So when can we actually start testing how effective booster alts will be...... whats eta on having all related skills, rigs, ships etc on SiSi?

    Current status is there is no use in testing with only parts of the puzzle in place.

    Anything in particular that you're missing? Everything should have been in place for a while now, but if anything is missing atm just let me know and we'll get it sorted.

    Hard to put the puzzle together if you dont first open the box

  • [Ascension] Phenomena Generators in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Act-Mack PVT wrote:
    penifSMASH wrote:
    You'll get a lot of people posting here complaining because lol eve players and change, but these modules look interesting as heck and will force fleets to make tactical gameplay choices.

    The Minmatar effect on hybrid/energy turret optimal range seems a bit unfair. It's a direct counter to both armor titans while having no negative effect on shield ones, whereas neither armor titan effect generator has similar gameplay effect on shield titan weapons systems (missiles/projectiles).

    Also I feel as if the fuel usage may be a tad bit high but that's a minor issue.

    I can't wait until some leviathen or reagnorok in the legion/NC, bursts your armor fleet with one.

    I can't wait until you learn how to spell

  • [Ascension] Phenomena Generators in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Amarr and Minmatar resist bonus should be swapped. Caldari has an EM bonus - T2 Caldari weakness, Gallente Explosive - T2 Gallente weakness, Amarr has Kinetic - T2 Minmatar weakness, Minmatar has Therm - T2 Amarr weakness.

    Second debuff on Minmatar seems...off.

    Amarr - kills kitey fleets
    Gallente - kills shield logi fleets
    Caldari - kills armor logi fleets
    Minmatar - kills slower fleets, but only if they are Gallente or Amarr? Slow, rapid light cruisers like cerbs, still gonna hit fast kitey cruisers fine. I think the issue here is that to counter kitey, you have to decrease, range overall, which also happens to counter the kitey ship as well. Tough one :D

  • Dev blog: Building Dreams: Introducing Engineering Complexes in EVE Information Center

    I enjoy the people talking about how a small group can't afford these.

    I'll be putting up a large...by myself.

    700 mil for a medium. So if you have even 2 people its 350 mil a piece. Approx a decently fit HIC. If your small group cant raise 700 mil in the month before these come out, you should be ashamed to call yourself industrialists.

    As far a fuel cost, even if you're using 50-60 blocks an hour, tax the people using it to pay for it. If there aren't enough people doing jobs to make it worth it, don't put up your own, and instead use one somebody else has made public, because clearly you are not industry focused enough to worry.