EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2010-11-07 02:14
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-01-21 18:39
  • Number of Posts: 65
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 41

Tribal Trogdor

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

Last 20 Posts

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

    Fighters could do with a slight nerf to their alpha, but hitting sustained dps is kind of garbage. Keeping sustained dps is already hard with how easy they are to kill now.

    You didn't want to affect other people doing anoms, which is why the focus was only on carrier/super ratting, correct? There was no other way to do this? What issues did you come across when looking into other solutions? Could the types of rats in high end anoms not be swapped to include some more sig tanking cruisers or such? What about spawn locations? Could waves in the higher end anoms not be scattered with somethink like group A,B,C spawing 50km in different directions with rats of various engagment ranges, where travel time would lower income? Most other larger ships should be able to hit that far no problem with longer range weapons/sentries.

    The issue is predictability. People know exactly what is going to spawn where and when it will happen. It makes it too easy to do stuff like smartbomb ratting, boson ratting, and carrier/super ratting. What if one time you did a haven and the second wave was a bunch of short range battleships, the next time was a mix of long and short range ones, the third time was a large group of battlecruisers, and the forth time was a handful of bs, but four to five tackle frigs. Also want to buy random LOL HIC rats to keep people on their toes :D

    This kind of stuff would get you similar results, without specifically hitting a specific type of ship, that has negative effects on application in other situations. Unfortunately we get all of 3 days to have this kind of discussion vov

  • [119.6] Standup Hyasyoda Research Lab in EVE Technology and Research Center

    ZeRonin wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    The existing Hyasyoda Research Laboratories will continue to operate normally in June. Under the current plan the research speed bonuses of the existing Hyasyoda Research Laboratories will be phased out in August so we advise existing users to make plans to switch over the next few months.!

    This means the existing modules won't get converted?
    And all the modules i bought are nearly worthless?

    No, it means read the paragraph directly above what you quoted

  • [119.6] Standup Thukker Capital Component rigs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I think it needs just a little bit more ME bonus. Its only 3% better than a T1 rigged in null. I don't think its enough since its like 11% better right now. Would be nice to see it up another 2% or so

  • [119.6] Standup Hyasyoda Research Lab in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ghost Hunter wrote:
    A typo for the speed bonuses not being retained, or is the only benefit of this service module truly less PG and fuel consumption?

    Just fuel and pg

  • [119.6] Standup Thukker Capital Component rigs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    mr awesomemate wrote:
    1. Will we be able to unfit T1 capital component rigs in low-sec for this? Or do we have to destroy.

    2. Will there be any TE reduction? The thukker component array gave a very big one.

    3. Be very careful with the droprate on these. I think they dropped about 1/10 times from besieged before and as a result there were 1000s of these very quickly. Reasonably theres probably only going to be 50-70 citadels fitting with these things in a year (due to their low-sec exclusivity). Please dont let them turn into basically useless loot as they were before.

    edit: also what will happen to the old thukker BPCs that were unused before they stopped working.

    2. It says they'll keep the other standard bonus', on regular large rigs you get an ME bonus, so yes
    3. You'll be able to reprocess the old ones and get a bpc out of them. If there are already thousands out there, then unfortunatly there will be thousands when its done :P

    edit: BPC's turn into the chip thingy that you can choose a bpc from (large, xl)

  • Bumped before you can jump gates... exploit? or working as intended.. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Would be nice for an official reply on this one. I'm with the guy you quoted, and he's got it pretty much down to where he can do it every time. If it's not an exploit we have a bunch of JF's to go murder. The issue has been posted everywhere, so would assume CCP knows about it and is okay with it. But assuming ends up getting you banned a few months down they road when they decide to take action vov

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

    There are multiple Structures (five) available on Singularity for you to find and attack. On Tranquility there will only be one.

    So there's only going to be one at a time across all BR space? Will they despawn after a time? Seems like they're going to be insanely hard to find if that's the case, give you have to follow around a hauler, which I've yet to see even one of :(

  • [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.