EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2011-04-03 22:11
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-06-01 01:35
  • Number of Posts: 36
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 9

Xantia Naari

Security Status 5.0
  • BRO GAMING Corporation Member since
  • FREE GATES COALITION Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dictateur Imperator wrote:
    Legal procedure is starting for the game accessibility change.
    We will see.


    HaHaHaHa ROFLMAO

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Prior to the patch I didn't carrier rat at all. I had just moved to null and was a bit worried that my skill investment regarding carriers would be a waste after the patch. My skills are low so I use t1 fighters, but after learning how to use the keys, I have not lost a single fighter.

    Reading the last pages of comments I see the nerf hit those who multi box while carrier ratting and those who are too dumb to learn how the keys work. I guess Heavy fighters might need more HP but I have no first person experience about them.

    So overall I'm happy. Exploit is nerfed and skill at playing the game is boosted. Two birds with one rock. Now, those who "deserve it" will get bore bucks for their isk.

    Good job CCP! Big smile

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    Xantia Naari wrote:
    Beast of Revelations wrote:

    I would wager that most would agree that CCP should keep the economy in balance. This should not be done by handicapping and nerfing capital ships. There are a bazillion ways you can adjust the economy. Doing it by nerfing capital ships should not be one of them.


    Why shouldn't the biggest cause to the imbalance between isk faucet andisk sink be adjusted?


    Because it is stupid, dumb, and ill-conceived to view the problem of the economy as a problem of sig radius on fighters, that's why.

    If carrier ratting anoms is too easy, and causes too much ISK to be made too easily, then adjust the fracking anom, adjust the fracking payouts, adjust the ability of a fracking carrier to even fit inside anoms. Adjust potentially a billion different things that would all be REASONABLE to adjust. But just make sure that you adjust the fracking ECONOMY, morons, not the hardware on a ship.

    Now, if the hardware on a ship is the thing that is imbalanced, then by all means adjust it. For instance if carriers were OP against dreads, titans, and whatever else, and after investigation the problem was found to be the sig radius of the fighters, not carrier hit points, not the carrier being too cheap, not number of high slots or mid slots or low slots on the carrier, etc. So fine, adjust away. But to adjust sig radius on carrier fighters because of an economic imbalance? Height of moronic.



    So you are saying, for example, it would be alot better if CCP removed the amount of anom spawns so that they become alot rarer then they are now?

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Joe Uta wrote:
    Have second window nidhoggur.
    Trying to handle Angel Heaven.
    1st attempt: gate heaven, -2 fighters during final wave.
    2st attempt: simple heaven, -3 fighters..
    3st attempt: gate heaven, -1 fighter during final wave.

    Seen the video about orbitting structure or wreck between waves. Doesn`t work. When fighter kill his target hi is became static, not move. And npc shot him very well during his final weapon cycle(while hi is stand). That makes carrier ratting no more avaible for me...

    RIP Nidhoggur.

    P.S. sry for bad grammar.



    Try fitting 2x capital drone durability rig tech II

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    Martin Vanzyl wrote:

    Between then and now Bounty Payout has gone from a level of 1Tril Isk to peaking in Mid February 2017 at 2.2 TRILLION ISK, whilst the Sinks barely changed at all.

    Its NOT a good idea to just INJECT that amount of money into your economy to that extent that quickly. That leads to currency devaluation and money oversupply. Google a bit to see why that's BAD.

    CCP can see what ship/activity is earning these the most, I assume. So if this is what they have to do to keep EVE's economy afloat... and by extension, the game going, which puts food on their tables, keeps the lights on, by all means.


    I would wager that most would agree that CCP should keep the economy in balance. This should not be done by handicapping and nerfing capital ships. There are a bazillion ways you can adjust the economy. Doing it by nerfing capital ships should not be one of them.


    Why shouldn't the biggest cause to the imbalance between isk faucet andisk sink be adjusted?

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Zenra Va'Kur wrote:




    If the isk earned from multi-boxing carriers is the issue, then why aren't other drone boats being forced to be just as micro managing? It's now cheaper, less risky, and far far less work to multi-box ishtars or even a VNI for god sake. Hell just 3 VNI's will make as much as my carrier (I'm low skill).

    The sad part about this is, my carrier is now a hauler, as the sites are now like rolling the dice. I lose 6 to one haven, then 1 to another, then 2 to another. I also follow the general findings everyone has done videos on to stop fighter deaths and they still get volleyed off the field and mainly by only battleships, not the cruisers or frigs that I take out early. My Ishtar loses zero. And I can actually see the health of the drones being hit, so I have a chance at calling them back when they get smacked to hard.

    I'd be nice to actually have someone give me a good reason why hitting hotkeys every 2 seconds for an hour or 2 is fun. It's nothing but tedious, and detrimental to the health of my arms and hands. I have enough issues with my arms due to computer use I do not need my hobby to also add on another few hours of repetitive key pressing so that I can make some pointless space ship money. The risk of carrier ratting is so not worth it when you add the amount of damage it will do, and the risk it brings in game financially.



    This must be one of the most pathetic arguments in the history of gaming entertainment. God forbid you try other games like Starcraft or CS that actually requires pushing keys many times a second. If you think pushing a key every 2 seconds is detrimental to your health, I strongly suggest you quit gaming all together and get your fat ass up and exercise it. Either that or retire to a old folks home and stick to playing bingo.

    All players that quit EVE because their favorite exploit has been nerfed is good riddance.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    clipper shore wrote:
    look guys from looking at whats happening in null sec at the moment where huge numbers are not even logging into the game i would say at the next investors meeting fozzie and larkin will have alot of explaing to do why huge numbers of players have stopped playing the game

    me for 1 hhas been carrier ratting for years with the carrier changes it ment i could only use 1 to rat at a time big drop in my income

    now i may loose money ratting in my carrier because of these changes sorry ccp but if you want to kill null sec you have done it

    never heard so much rage about this patch i think there will be a long term efect to the player base the eve will never recover from


    I have changed my mind. I was under the impression that carrier ratting was going to be totally impossible, but after testing some fits on sisi I found that it IS possible not to lose a single fighter as long as you pay attention and work those hot keys. Carrier ratting was never ment to be an isk printing business you could do with more then one carrier at a time, while watching a mové..
    The quote above is a good example. All ways of making isk should involve actually playing the game. You need to work a little to earn your isk. So, you have a dream of flying a carrier and making some good profit doing so? That still exists! It's just that you can't do any PvP at the same time on a separate account. I'm only talking about the PvE part here but the changes nerfes the carrier ratting obuse rather then the entire prospect of carrier ratting at all. So for those who still feel bitter, I guess you'll have to find another way to pay for your 20 accounts, 20 titans or what ever you had in mind.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Xantia Naari wrote:
    For the majority among those who PLEX their account, the only thing less likely to happen, when the carpet is removed under their feet, than quitting eve, is subscribing.


    So according to you, the majority will turn to other income sources or continue carrier ratting since there is only 1 option less likely than quitting so all others must be more likely.



    That is exactly what I'm saying. I think incursions will have an increase for example

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    For the majority among those who PLEX their account, the only thing less likely to happen, when the carpet is removed under their feet, than quitting eve, is subscribing.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE?
    A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.

    Be prepared to unbreak this change.

  • Project discovery: Future discoveries in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Reaver Glitterstim wrote:




    But is there really ANY battleship in this game that can't do level 4 missions?



    what are those links?

  • Project discovery: Future discoveries in EVE Technology and Research Center

    elitatwo wrote:
    The Dominix Navy Issue is a very large Vexor and your fitting may be wrong.

    Both the Vexor and Navy Dominix have a turret and drone damage bonus and for the sake of everything, none of them is a Curse.



    so what is the right fitting?

  • Project discovery: Future discoveries in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Wolfgang Jannesen wrote:
    How CANT you use a Dominix in L4's?!

    I'm interested in these projects for sure, but I'm baffled at what's giving you trouble in the navy domi. Link your fit?


    I don't like linking fits here because it attracts gankers, sorry. Not my fault. However...
    I'm not a mission runner per se. I mainly do HQ incursions and explorations, but every now and then I like to relax and do some missions. Sometimes I use a Rattlesnake with t2 rapid heavys so I can get em frigates while my heavy drones go to work. The tank is nice. I also like the Barghest with t2 rapid heavys. The range is awesome (with scripts) and the light drones can work on the frigates while the missiles go to work. So both can take care of frigates and larger rats at the same time, while the former uses tank and the latter uses range as their flavor to stay alive.
    Now, I love the domi hull. It's beautiful, but can it tank while providing dps? Can it pull range while providing dps? Are there other ways to avoid needing to warp of site while still having enough dps? I'm all ears

  • Project discovery: Future discoveries in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I'm stocked to see you have expanded on the project discovery idea. I have a few suggestions on future project discovery themes you could consider.

    1 Project Hephaisitos: the surch for extraterrestrial civilizations to far away for communications.
    http://www.astro.uu.se/~ez/hephaistos/hephaistos.html#portfolio

    2 Project Foldit: Solving protein structures for science.
    https://fold.it/portal/

    Oh, and one more thing. Could you please give the Navy Domi a buff so it can used in lv4 missions. That would be great!

  • Where did the fun go? in EVE Communication Center

    I think people just grew up. I don't know what the average EvE player age is, but I bet it is higher then most and is increasing.

  • Sci fi versus Sci fact? in EVE Communication Center

    Owen Levanth wrote:

    Mining already is based on the periodic table of elements, just abstraced by gameplay necessity. Lore-wise, the names come from thousands of years of separate history. That's why you get stuff like "Pyerite", with a name so close to something in our world, you can easily see how they got their names, even if it has probably nothing to do with the "Pyrit" we know.

    Base metals mined with PI is for example exactly what you describe with sea water and alkali metals. Just that it turns on out you can also find it on planets without oceans.


    I don't understand, if the thousands of years could cause the lingual evolution of minerals, why did not also the names of moon "materials" (they are actually names of elements taken directly from the periodic table) also evolve? Take for example the extremly rare element Technetium...
    Either make these materials more fictional or make the minerals less fictional.

  • Sci fi versus Sci fact? in EVE Communication Center

    Deckel wrote:
    While it would make sense to keep the periodic table, that would also mean ratifying fictional industrial processes, components and manufacturing to real-world materials, which would be a huge turn-off for game designers as they would then need to always keep material realism as an aspect of all items in the game, rather than focusing on game balance and functionality.

    Personally I think they made the right choice in distancing themselves from real-world materials.


    That is a very good point. I also realized that the effort it would take to change such a thing and then balancing it etc etc etc, would be a nightmare for CCP. It would be a total cascade effect of changes. However, aren't the moon materials various non-fictional elements already?

    There are alternative ways to picture the periodic table that would fit the EVE, I guess.
    http://www.chemistry-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mayan.jpg

  • Sci fi versus Sci fact? in EVE Communication Center

    Tavin Aikisen wrote:


    Do we actually know the chemical composition of New Eden's minerals? All we know are names that have been given to them. Remember New Eden experienced a dark age and science and technology was reborn and thus so were naming conventions.

    The only opposition to this I can think of at this stage is Tritanium. The lore stated that it used to be volatile when exposed to an atmosphere.


    No we don't but we would expect them to be composed with the elements we have on earth. We would also expect the most common ones to be like the most common ones we have found impacting earth. i.e. iron asteroids. Thus Iron should replace tritanium, or at least name it Titanium instead of Tritanium...Unless tritanium is an alloy of some sort..in which case it would not lock like a smoky quarts crystal...what ever.
    In order to follow the lore, I would keep the names for the common and obvious elements that would not be forgotten. Such as oxygen, carbon, iron etc. The rarer stuff like those rare earth metals could have other names, but keep their abbreviation... For example Lutetium (71Lu) could be named Luminairium instead after the Gallente Luminaire system.

    Yebo Lakatosh wrote:

    Expecting anything realistic from soft science fiction just diminishes the enjoyment rate


    That depends on how it is implemented. I don't think slightly more correct chemistry would harm the joy, but perfectly correct could. My point is, using your analogy with Kerbal Space Program, at the moment the chemistry in game is so bad, the planets would be flat and square if the physics was equally as bad :D

  • Sci fi versus Sci fact? in EVE Communication Center

    I'm a huge fan of sci fi. Being a science teacher and all I enjoy the imagination about future technology. There is however some things that will be same regardless of what parts or time of space we visit. One of those things are the elements we find on earth will also be found all over space. The minerals that exist will be composed of those elements. The minerals that exist in EVE do not have an equivalent on earth and will never have. What I'm trying to say is that sci fi applies only to what intelligence does with technology. Nature will remain the same.

    What if mining instead was based on the periodic table of elements? Minerals in asteroid belts contain minerals rich in Iron, Tungsten, Iridium, Gold, Silver, Platinum, Osmium, Palladium etc. Rarer asteroids could contain some rare earth metals. Gas clouds could contain the nobel gases. Ice could contain half metals and light metals. Alkali metals could be found in sea water from PI. Some of the realy rare stuff could be isotopes that are either natural occurring or produced in factories.

    This would be lovely! This would be so awesome and would also be educational and relateable :D

    This is after all EVE and not WOW.... This is SCIENCE fiction and not MAGIC fiction XD

  • 119.1 - General discussion (PC) in EVE Information Center

    A few things that have crossed my mind...


    • I wish there where more things to buy with the AP from project discovery. perhaps just use AP to discount other things..
    • I wish the dominix got a buff. It is pretty much useless. Even the navy domi is terrible in missions. It's to bad since it is, in my opinion, amongst the best looking ships in the game.

Forum Signature

There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.