EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2010-07-21 13:03
  • First Forum Visit: 2013-06-19 18:10
  • Number of Posts: 65
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Viceorvirtue

Security Status 5.0
  • The Hatchery Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Faction tags for pirate faction standings in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Currently you can use tags to recover faction standings for empire factions, but not pirate factions. This becomes a bit of a problem when you decide to move from doing missions in hisec to living in npc null to play other parts of the game only to realize youre stuck doing leel 1 missions until the end of time to get a few hundred story lines until you can do anything else. While regular missions will alert you that 'hey this will result in negative standing hits towards empire faction here' you don't get that message against pirate factions leading many players to go deep into the negative without even realizing it.

    I know there are epic arcs for pirates to recover standing but I still feel there should be a system in place for at the very least getting standings high enough that you aren't stuck running level 1 missions for storylines for weeks on end just to access the other missions. The 'tags4sec' style of getting standings ust to bearable levels for going around and doing content seemed like a god way to provide more options to players who aren't even made aware they may be locking themselves out of parts of the game since you don't get any 'this mission will lower your standing with pirate faction' notice.

    CCP SnowedIn said I should totally post this idea at Vegas so here it is. He also said 'Im not a dev and everything I say is bullshit.' So grain of slat for that I guess. Anyway best of luck to him with all the APi stuff it seemed really exciting.

  • [AEGIS] The Hecate in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Quick math shows 5 turrets with 50% being 7.5 effective. Add in 25% rof and you have roughly 9.375 effective turrets.

    If you want 10 effective turrets the best way to do that is 4 turrets, a 100% base dmg bonus (bringing it to 8 effective) and a 25% total rof bonus (bringing that up to 10 effective). Ofcourse rof may result in more effective turrets than a dmg bonus but that's my napkin math.

  • Incursion 'Things' in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The only problem with incursions currently is the amount of raw isk given out is roughly a 1:1 in terms of conversions. So youll get 10m raw isk for every 10k lp. This is completely different from every other isk/lp source, even in nullsec missions you only get a max of 4-5m for every 10-15k lp.

    I would rather see the amount of raw isk given for incursions reduced and the lp given increased. This wouldn't ultimately change the payout of the incursion, but it would encourage people to actually finish the incursion as well as not get quite so much of their income out of raw isk.

  • A small boost to the Syndicate LP store in EVE Technology and Research Center

    And having crystals in is only useful if you are in an active shield boosting ship. Something like a buffer tanked devoter doesn't actually get any use out of them. Equally a sieged dreadnought or triaged carrier generally doesn't get anything from having snakes in.

    Edge implants already are only currently effective to any extent if you take drugs and this wouldn't change that at all. I am also pretty sure that people use drugs on subcapitals as well. It becomes better than slaves on a ship like a myrmidon since you end up with an extra ~10% net effect of strong exile (up from 30% reps to 40%). Strong frentix would only go from 20% to 26% which does not seem like a large amount but we only have mid grade implants for Edge so I would expect a ~30% bonus total to drug effect similar to the other mid grade sets.

    I do not want to change the implants drastically, I just want them to be in a state where it is desirable to use them instead of being somewhat pointless as they are now. I also do not want to see them in a potentially overpowered state and while they wouldn't be as widely used as other types of implants, they would still have definite benefit.

  • A small boost to the Syndicate LP store in EVE Technology and Research Center

    So I was thinking a bit about the Edge implant set. Currently it reduces the negative effects of drugs you take, however if you are in a situation where you are taking drugs, say exile or drop for example, you don't care about the penalties because you are likely to lose your ship if you don't take the drugs.

    This tends to make reducing the negative effects of drugs completely unneeded especially when compared to any other pirate implant set, or even something as basic as genolutions. So instead of decreasing the negative aspects of drugs why not have the Edge set increase the positive bonus of drugs instead? This would bring them to the level of snakes, slaves, halos, etc as well as give people more of a reason to get strong drugs.

    Crystals would still be better for pure boosting that Edge since crystals increase the base amount of boost and Edge would only increase the amount of the drug by a few percent. Crystals+blue pill would result in a stronger boost than Edge+blue pill though edge would also increase the effet of other drugs you may be taking, such as drop, crash, frentix, soothsayer, x-instinct, exile, mindflood.

  • [Kronos] Medium Micro Jump Drives in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ok theres a good argument if ishtars are 70-80k away and you jump 100km, they are now 20-30k away. If you jump 50km they are...20-30k away. You also have to remember that unlike battleships, bcs don't have great projection. You start reaching the end of your damage at 40-50km. Also linked heated rf point range is 40somethingkm. so as was pointed out above, how are you being pointed by these ishtars from 70-80k, you should be able to warp off, land at 0 and possibly mjd in front of or on top of them as they burn out. If they are within linked rf point range you land on top of them and theres a good chance that they are going to be in a bad position once that happens.

    Realistically bcs do not have the projection to be able to deal with your example of ishtars well, regardless of how far the mjd gets you. I would suggest mjd pulse apocs using scorch as you get to hit them for actual damage from 70-80km and are able to mjd closer if they want to try to burn outside of your hull bonused projection range. They also have a tracking bonus for when you land close to them and are likely to be hitting their lowest resist. That's the best solution to your Ishtar problem I can think of.

    Back to mmjds, I feel 50km is going to be far more effective against recons, linked kiters, and logi as well as not shooting you too far past your own logi. Bcs don't have the buffer of battleships and while command ships may pull it off, going that long without logi in an aggressive 100km jump will lose you potentially more than you stand to gain. 50km jump allows your logi to actually keep up easily so you aren't going to be guaranteed to lose people if you want to be aggressive.

    And this does nothing to stop it as a retreat module, you can just as easily turn around, mjd and warp off somewhere to get out of point range, even from recons since recons generally wont want to be within 40km of you and many recons aren't going to have 90km+ points.

  • [Kronos] Medium Micro Jump Drives in EVE Technology and Research Center

    You also have to remember that a 50km jump allows you to use the mmjd as more of an offensive positional tool. For example, you can pounce on top of logi, recons, people who are burning away from your gang to secure points on them. It also preserves the mmjd as an escape tool, allowing you to remove yourself from the opponents longpoint and warp off.

    Im wondering what the exact logic behind the 'it lets you get out from battleships' argument is because as far as I know large micro jump drives also have a 100km range so they can just mjd back on top of you and it does not change the situation where you are remarkably close to a battleship.

    I do see the argument of getting out of bombs and bubbles, though bombs only have a 15km radius (total 30km diameter) explosion so 50km should be more than enough to get out of a bomb run. I am not sure how common it is to quickly set up a field of bubbles 50km+ long, but it seems unrealistic to me so you should be able to remove your fleet from a field of bubbles and warp off/reposition from there.

    I would love to see more arguments on how 100km jump is superior to a 50km just based on bc engagement ranges (especially now that abcs wont be using them) as well as how 100km would be superior as an offensive position tool. As far as arguments presented in the thread, there seem to be far more showing that a 50km jump would ultimately give pilots more options than a 100km jump.

  • Sugar Kyle for CSM9 in Council of Stellar Management

    Currently lowsec anomalies are in a strange place. The majority of anomalies require more than just a simple t1 cruiser but still ultimately give less than belt ratting does. The higher end lowsec anomalies such as hubs tend to require a bc and still don't give anything notable, its not as consistant as belt ratting and you actually make more doing missions/exploration using the same ship.

    Do you feel there are any problems with lowsec anomalies and if so what do you feelpotential ways of fixing them would there be?

  • DJ FunkyBacon for CSM9 in Council of Stellar Management

    On the topic of mining, why mining specifically? Why not something that's already more lowsec specific such as gas harvesting? Mining is already low income even in nullsec compared to what else you can do in the area even as a low skiled player. If peope do not want to live in lowsec already, its because they generally don't want to risk losing their ship and they've no real guard asgainst that in lowsec, in hisec you can use a procurer and be fine, in null you've got intel channels and in wh you have dscan/sig counts to lock down your wh. Putting in mechanics to make ppl want to mine would likely be synonymous with making lowsec safer and I do not see that as being a good thing for lowsec.

    What are your opinions on the income disparity between faction war and non faction war lowsec? Do you see it as a problem and if so what would be the best way to try and balance it out?

    Have you considered changing warfare links so they both give you a weapons timer like bastion and also large sig bloat like mwd? It would prevent people from using them on stations or gates and just leaving and would allow even low skilled players to probe them down quickly. Right now you can just use the probing enhancement modues and be able to probe linkboats but most people don't fit those for whatever reason that I've noticed.

  • Sugar Kyle for CSM9 in Council of Stellar Management

    On the topic of the New Player Expierence. Many players feel the NPE still needs much work. Personally I think that there should certainly be more of an emphasis on the fact that you can die to people even in hisec if you aren't docked up. Additionally many of the mechanics such as corp management and pos management are not explained in any tutorial, making it frustrating for even veterans of the game to manage. What are some of the areas, in any, you feel the NPE is lacking in and why?

  • Sugar Kyle for CSM9 in Council of Stellar Management

    Supporting Sugar for CSM9.

  • the ESS is totally broken in EVE Technology and Research Center

    This makes me wonder why pods are able to access the ESS at all. I mean you go through all the trouble of spawning so many rats on top of it and it can be completely bypassed by leaving your ship. It wouldn't be unprecedented to prevent pods from using it, after all the mechanic already exists with fw plexs where you cannot enter them in pods and would only reinforce the mechanic.

    If you want to use the ESS you should have to bring a ship and not be able to bypass rats using a pod. Simple really.

  • the ESS is totally broken in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The issue people have is that some think it should be defended by the people who live there. Sticking it in a fully spawned anom means you don't have to defend it against the one or two guys roaming your space. This results in no real content generation as they cant attempt to steal from your ESS without dying to the rats, and you have no reason to respond to very small gangs or people roaming solo. While it is interesting that this can be pulled off, it strikes me as odd that you would rather have npcs prevent potential content generation to such an extent.

    Furthermore, on the 'get a larger fleet or just don't bother' response, a larger fleet may not even get a fight in the system as you could just have a couple people doing pve there. These people likely wouldn't fight the larger incoming fleet and forming up a response to it may take far too long, by the time you have a response fleet they may have already taken the loot and left. I get that very few people actually want to defend these structures from one or two guys, but when they do, fights like the one posted above happen which is the kind of content that keeps a lot of people playing and gives them a reason to roam and such.

  • the ESS is totally broken in EVE Technology and Research Center

    brinelan wrote:
    When its making fights like this, http://themittani.com/news/19-goonswarm-carriers-lost-ju-owq It is working as intended as a conflict driver so i doubt you'll see any changes.


    Its important to note that this was able to happen because the ESS was not located at a fully spawned anomaly. If it had been, the locals would not have had to form up in response to the stealth bomber trying to steal from the ESS since the rats would just kill it. The only problem with this I see is from the perspective of the locals not having to defend their space. Sure you can still clear the anom but for the average solo person roaming in nullsec hoping to maybe force the locals to respond, this really prevents a lot of content from being created. Then again if I lost nearly 20 carriers trying to defend an ESS I would e trying to find a way to reap its benefits without really having to defend it myself as well.

  • [Rubicon 1.1] Rapid Missile Update in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Well the main complaint has been the reload time making reacting to a changing fight frustratingly difficult and unfun. Rise's last post has essentially said 'No, we do not want you reloading in combat to be able to react to things.' Rise can feel free to correct that if he likes, but I get the feeling that will be the only real answer we are going to get on the matter. At least we finally got an answer, even if it isn't really going to help the rapid launcher problem.

    So unless people just stop trying to make them work and wait for CCP to rebalance based on metrics again I don't see any changes happening.

  • [Rubicon 1.1] Rapid Missile Update in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Frigates are actually much worse off against the burst rlm than against the original rlm. Anything with the level of tank that a common assault frigate or cruiser has can generally outlast the first clip of rlm and achieve tackle or leave. T1 frigates are easily instagibbed by the 'high dps' and then the rlm user is stuck for roughly 2 jam cycles of not being able to shoot anything.

    The only thing overpowered about the original rlm was the low fittings allowing you to go triple lse on caracals and lse/xlasbs on cerbs. If Rise was serious about not making sweeping changes, he would've altered the fitting first and seen how balanced it was instead of changing it all to an entirely new and relatively untested mechanic. Not to mention the glaring flaw of being unable to change to a different ammo type if the fight changes without taking over half a minute to do so.

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    CCP SoniClover wrote:
    Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.

    Additions/edit
    * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance.
    * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up.
    * Interacting with the ESS now puts a warp disruption effect on the ship interacting with it. Ships immune to bubbles are not immune to this effect. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.

    Also, some of the stats have changed:
    * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million
    * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k
    * Volume increased from 150 to 200
    * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300.
    * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds

    Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.




    Speaking as one of the worst offenders from when you initially buffed fw (even after nerfing it I can still get several hundred mission isk per mission cycle at tier 4) I can only support this change. I highly suggest you make it similar to concord lp so you can turn it into any lp store because that would really be balanced for everyone and wont cause significant personal wealth generation. Nope, not one bit.

    Speaking as someone who still thinks the lp from lvl 4 fw missions needs to be cut by like 50%, I can see a couple ways this could result in interesting economic impacts but I am for more interested in seeing these things pan out than trying to make changes that might prevent them.

  • [Rubicon 1.1] Rapid Missile Update in EVE Technology and Research Center

    These changes effectively do nothing. A 35 second reload to swap ammo is still far too long to react to any change on the field and the only effect you have given rlms now is they kill frigates even faster. Unfortunately I don't believe they are at the breakpoint where they can kill an af in a single clip so other than mincing t1 frigates more often nothing changes.

    You still refused to involve yourself in the discussion in the original rlm thread that actually went in depth into damage mechanics and the missile application formula in regards to all missiles. That could have been an amazing discussion but instead you peek in and now its 35 seconds, so 1.75 times a jam cycle instead of 2.

    There is still 0 reason to use this mechanic outside of killing 1-2 (well maybe 3) frigates and leaving the field, which so many other cruisers can do while staying on field and continuing to impact the fight. Your counterpoint is that we get to choose when to stop shooting for nearly 2 jam cycles so it is fine? I don't get to choose when something lands and I need to swap ammo to apply full damage to it, I still don't see the small gang community using this system much at all.

  • [Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    So your cerb has 2 painters, a point and a prop mod, with 2 rigs designed for application. This leaves you with a single lse and 0 em resist outside of your dcu. We are forced to assume the fight starts on 0 because if it does not then you are ble to easily kite the stabber and win regardless. However you has what is likely a dual lse scram ab stabber on 0 with you and you have no tank outside of your single lse and a gaping em hole. Unless you get absurdly lucky with ecm drones you are going to lose that Cerberus to the stabber.

    If the deimos has a defensive web (and its quite easy to get an armor tanked kiting deimos with 200mm rails and a defensive web to fly much like a Navy Omen) you basically load short range ammo and the stabber dies.

    As far as he proper gunnery response to a proteus the ship you are looking for is the oracle, it can project north of 800 dps past 60km with reasonably good tracking using scorch and manual piloting. Unlike rails it does not run into the problem of hitting the proteus in its highest resists.

    I am not arguing for rlm to be able to do everything, in fact let me go through what rlm was bad at before the 40 second reload change. Rlm was bad at fighting ships that had substantial amounts of buffer, and failed miserably against the popular dual rep sfi as well as many other dual rep cruisers. In a gang you were very easily ignored by enemy gangs with a single t1 logi, the reason for all of this is that rlm did about half the damage you would get out of an omen or a rail thorax.

    The solution to this problem was to bring along ships designed to just provide large amounts of damage, main 3 ships being the oracle with megapulse and scorch, the typhoon with precision cruise, and the Ishtar with sentries. When solo you often had to force the opposing cruiser to chase you until it potentially capped out when using the dual lse cap booster fit. Most of its low dps problems were ignored by fitting a third lse which gave it enough uptime to just brawl with rlms, which was clearly absurd and has been fixed.

    What I am complaining about is the same thing many other solo and small gang pvpers have said, 40 second reload prevents you from responding to any change in the fight and having such a high damage until this reload happens is potentially massively overpowered against light tackle. Changing it back to its previous iteration and gives light tackle more uptime in a small fight and lets you actually adapt to a new ship landing on field. As long as you keep the pg increase so triple lse and lse/xlasb cant be easily done then everything should be fine.

  • [Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    When a cruiser is scrammed, dual (possibly triple) webbed and target painted even cruise missiles are going to apply nearly full damage. The only thing you've shown with that kill is that fury heavy missiles do full damage when a target is scram/webbed and painted, yet not how little damage you apply even with cn or precision vs a target that is not scram/webbed and painted compared to hams and light missiles. You generally don't go scram/web on caldari hulls with hml because you don't have the damage to make up for throwing away your ability to tank which is why if youre going to be fighting in web range you bring hams. Hams give you the damage you need to make up for having far less tank due to requiring scram/web. This is why you rarely see solo hml boats because the majority of them cant afford to sacrifice their ability to stay on field in order to apply damage.

    As far as missiles able to swap damage type that is exactly the reason the current iteration of rlms and rhml are considered worthless. They can't swap damage types when they need to (which is generally in the middle of combat) because they have a 40 second reload.