EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2013-05-19 16:43
  • First Forum Visit: 2013-06-01 11:41
  • Number of Posts: 2,466
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

epicurus ataraxia

Security Status 4.7
  • Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Member since
  • Illusion of Solitude Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Mutli-Use Analyzers Feedback Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Skyler Hawk wrote:
    Quote:
    * I get the concerns with the lower strength, but I don't want to make the ‘Zeugma’ Integrated Analyzer (the stronger one) the 'always go-to' option. They have to have some limitations with their dual benefit. (I already see that players are skilled enough in the hacking game that the loss of a utility element slot might not be so detrimental on its own)


    I think a better way to achieve the goal of making a useful combined module would be to give it equal strength/coherence to the specialized modules, but much higher fitting costs than two of them - you need 50 cpu and 2 pg to run a t2 relic and data analyzer, so the combined module could maybe take 70 cpu and 5 pg, so you're trading midslots for fitting space.


    Yes that would be logical, one really cannot mess with the strengths of the module without making the new modules entirely useless, see post earlier.

    Fitting is the most logical place to apply a penalty, provided it is still able to be fitted.

    In my opinion It should have the same fitting requirements as both modules combined (data and relic analyser)
    And absolutely No other changes from the core modules coherence, virus strength, slots, all as the base module.

    And additionally give the higher spec module T2 skill requirements.

    Then they would be nicely balanced, effective, desireable, and in no way overpowered.

    There is absolutely no point in creating modules that are either not wanted or mislead new explorers into fitting a module that is worse in every practical way than T1

    If you ABSOLUTELY need to add a penalty, I would suggest, the cycle has to end before warp can be engaged?
    Nasty, but justifiable for the slot saving.

  • Mutli-Use Analyzers Feedback Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP RedDawn wrote:
    Hi all.

    After releasing some information regarding this during Fanfest, I'd like to get your feedback on two new Storyline exploration modules.

    I propose to release two new mid slot 'hacking' modules, that can open both Data and Relic containers.
    This would free up a mid slot for all explorers who wish to use these modules, rather then having to fit both the Data and Relic Analyzers separately.
    However as these modules would combine two separate 'functions' together, they will be less effective generally than their individual, specialised counterparts.

    The BPC's for these modules would drop from all Data exploration sites.
    The ‘Ligature’ Integrated Analyzer BPC would drop from the lower end Info Shard and Com Tower containers, while the ‘Zeugma’ Integrated Analyzer BPC would drop from the higher end Mainframe and Databank containers.


    Now on to the stats.

    ‘Ligature’ Integrated Analyzer

    Volume 5 m3
    Activation Cost 20 GJ
    Optimal Range 5000 m
    Activation Time / Duration 10 seconds
    Virus Coherence 30
    Virus Strength 15
    Virus Utility Element Slots 2
    Tech Level 1
    CPU usage 25


    ‘Zeugma’ Integrated Analyzer

    Volume 5 m3
    Activation Cost 20 GJ
    Optimal Range 6000 m
    Activation Time / Duration 10 seconds
    Virus Coherence 50
    Virus Strength 20
    Virus Utility Element Slots 2
    Tech Level 2
    CPU usage 30



    To manufacture these modules, you will require the following:


    ‘Ligature’ Integrated Analyzer

    Relic Analyzer I x1
    Data Analyzer I x1
    High-Tech Data Chip x500
    High-Tech Manufacturing Tools x500
    High-Tech Scanner x500


    ‘Zeugma’ Integrated Analyzer

    Relic Analyzer II x1
    Data Analyzer II x1
    High-Tech Data Chip x1000
    High-Tech Manufacturing Tools x1000
    High-Tech Scanner x1000

    You will also require both of the same Data and Relic skills that the Tech I and Tech II current analyzers use.

    That's it for now, please share your thoughts, ideas and concerns.

    Fly safe, (and thanks for an awesome Fanfest yet again) Big smile
    CCP RedDawn


    In principle this is a lovely idea.

    Losing a little coherence is disappointing but bearable.

    Losing virus strength is however a game breaker for these modules, If I remember correctly, in relation to the way virus strength with the current "attacks" from the minigame, Virus strength is a binary function. Ie you kill it or you don't

    10 is the step that will actually determing a "kill" so effectively this is another step to kill the node, Reducing the virus strength by 4,5,8, or 10 doesn't matter, it is a failed kill. So you haven't reduced the ligature by 5 at all, you have reduced it to/by an effective 10.

    Think of virus strength like a Key, it either opens the way or it doesn't, almost opening the way means you have failed to, the node still lives and the node strikes then back instead.

    If virus strength is reduced by ANY amount, There is absolutely no point in these items, unless they are something to be fitted by someone who has never done the minigame before.

    Please have a word with an explorer Dev, they will confirm that reducing virus strength renders this item useless. Virus strength is critical, one cannot add it with skills, implants, rigs or any fitting other than the T2 relic analyser, to take this away simply means one fails to be able to deal with things like restoration nodes, more often than not.

    In it's current form, even if free, I would NEVER use either on an exploration vessel, sorry.

    Tldr, reduce coherence, reduce slot for utility, even reduce the range, but do not reduce virus strength unless you want to kill the module before birth.

    This can be a useful Item, but like a bucket with a hole or a spanner with the wrong sized opening, one cannot make it useful unless the core function is preserved.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Post deleted.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Winthorp wrote:
    epicurus ataraxia wrote:
    Winthorp wrote:
    epicurus ataraxia wrote:


    Are there NO smart people here, able to think of a good idea, without just repeating the same tired arguments?
    Someone must have something new to say?


    The problem is you think these things posted by Corbexx are not what we have been nagging him and CCP for at length now.

    I am glad you have been caught up now though.


    Pay attention, and then you may have seen it from the first few comments.
    It is hard to establish the true issue, when one has to work through all the "uuh, ship Broken .... kill!, uuh need bigger rock!" comments before one can get anywhere.
    There are intelligent reasoned discussions in here somewhere, but bloody hard to dig through the **** to get to them.


    I am not sure you will ever get it m8.


    Believe me my estimation of the human race has gone down to levels, I had not considered possible, IKnow ™,I know, what did I expect from the EvE O forums, just as you think you have begun to get there, you look behind you, and find them "licking the rocks"™ again.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Winthorp wrote:
    epicurus ataraxia wrote:


    Are there NO smart people here, able to think of a good idea, without just repeating the same tired arguments?
    Someone must have something new to say?


    The problem is you think these things posted by Corbexx are not what we have been nagging him and CCP for at length now.

    I am glad you have been caught up now though.


    It is hard to establish the true issue, when one has to work through all the "uuh, ship Broken .... kill!, uuh need bigger rock!" comments before one can get anywhere.
    There are intelligent reasoned discussions in here somewhere, but bloody hard to dig through the **** to get to them.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Trinkets friend wrote:
    OK, here's my TL;DR of this thread:
    Epicurius whateveraxia: 75% of thread.
    Everyone else: STFU already, you've made your point, get out of basement.

    The issue i have is exactly the TDSIN problem. Personally, i use the T3's. We need something in the game to let small fry roll away from aspie neckbeards with 10:1 odds. it happens, even to the best of us. As Chester says, rolling off is a valuable and vital piece of gameplay opportunity for wormholes and must stay. That means rolling T3's.

    Epicurius' idea of rolling the yachts out if you can trap them out works if they are bad, and don't have alts to watch the hole. If they see you rollin' or massin', they won't commit a yacht to the effort. So, yeah, a behavioural fix to a clear balance problem? That's not addressing the problem, so you can shut up about this already. Ok, great, you trapped one idiot. It's like when Garmon was triple vindi-webbing JF's on undock: some doubtless got away, doesn't mean its not broken.

    As several smart people have said, if you keep the nullification, you will just end up with people using ISBoxer tactics to achieve the same goal. 24 Ishtar fleets could be replaced by 24 yachts. No biggie.

    As the guy said, above, its a ship with nullification. To get nullification in ANY other ship in the game, you have to train evasive maneuvering 5 and/or a bunch of other skills to 5. Plus it's a damn taxi. If there's a need for a nullified taxi for nullsec, people will just have to find an alternative. Like Ceptors, which already exist, surprise surprise.

    So, bearing in mind I prefer to keep fagroller T3s, the two changes are:
    Remove rig slots from Yachts. Problem solved. What else do you use the rigs for aside from making them instawarp?
    Remove its nullification. Nullbears just go back to using Ceptors.

    The second-order issue is its agility. It's a cruiser which can basically cloak and instawarp.

    Or, better yet, up the ship mass to 250Kt so if you Higgs it you can't fit through any wormholes.



    Thanks, It is good to get a bit of clarity injected, I don't have to fully agree, to appreciate the value of clear discussion.

    The rollout trick, does not require them to be bad, you simply crossjump a previously, cloaked higgs rigged 100mn proteus, or two for extra "make sure ness " Big smileas they make their final pass.
    But it requires commitment, as your proteus is closed in their hole, and being able to count, and scan, don't forget the probes, that the yacht doesn't have (for anyone who got confused following the story so far.)
    They never know you are there until you crossjump. Yeah, I know "effort" , rules it out for many. Nothing on the killboard means it is not a real kill for some too,
    bummer.

    Your idea, of increasing the mass, unfortunately, would mean that even without the higgs fitted it would close holes twice as fast.
    But It does point to the problem being as much with the hole mass mechanism as anything else.

    Someone needs to come up with a smart fix, that applies to the mass rolling technique, or we either, are not fixing the problem, or using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
    We all know extreme fixes would work, a blind deaf braindead monkey, could come up with that in two seconds, we need something that requires a bit of subtlety, beyond banging two rocks together and keeping one's "finger" out of the way

    We know CCP are looking at hole masses due to capitals, could a mass mechanic, be added, to prevent the Tdsin issue?

    Are there NO smart people here, able to think of a good idea, without just repeating the same tired arguments?
    Someone must have something new to say?

    I Wonder how many posts before someone looks here, and says, "Uug I like rock, please give, interdiction rock good! " :facepalm:

    Edit :double facepalm: beyond belief!
    Please God let it be an ironic post.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:
    epicurus ataraxia wrote:
    You two talk amongst yourselves, If you come up with something of value, I am sure someone will notice.Roll


    Honestly man, i've been more then respectful to you.

    You dont seem to appreciate the input of others and keep bashing your head onto a topic that most parties agree is not the crux of the issue.

    I dont think many people in the game use the yachts except for hole rolling, and those people could easily do the same work in an interceptor if they want the bubble immunity.

    I dont think its appropriate to add restrictions like removing bubble interdiction onto the higgs rig itself rather then just pull it from the yacht because it removes the hole rolling t3 which I believe is an important part that we need to keep the game.

    If you want to engage in a civil discourse about this issue, welcome back to the discussion, but please keep the hostility and ignorance to a minimum.

    Whilst I hardly regard the quote As respectful, I can overlook that, if you are genuinely interested in addressing the issue, whatever that may be.

    Quote:

    Perhaps we can just ignore him and keep discussing the issue?


    If you care to read back, you will note that The issue of TDSIN, was raised by others as the primary reason for this, requiring change, when discussion took place that the yacht, was not really an issue in LOclass WH space, and valuable for those players.

    People said IT MUST BE solved because of TSDIN.

    Fair enough, seemed like a problem existed there, so maybe that is what should be dealt with? Seemed reasonable.
    You don't agree fine, not a problem. Obviously not the real issue. You Seem to feel it was some hobby horse of mine, but more my being concerned for the effects on others, and considering them. I have not seen that, but I imagine they are telling the truth?

    Somwhat IS the problem? Is it some feeling that it is unfair that a ship with no combat ability, no defence ability, no ability for it to carry any quantity, has the temerity to be effective in some way when confronting a large Wolfpack?

    Does this break the game in so massive a way that it should cease to have ANY role anywhere in space? And the role that lower skilled players had some ability to avoid bubbles before they trained interceptors, I imagine horde, brave newbies, and Karmafleet, should just stay in their home systems unless protected by a fleet?
    So assuming they can do without this tool, and a massive issue exists to justify their withdrawal.

    Please explain how it is such a massive problem?

    When the only justification for any change, you feel no one is concerned about, they must be mistaken, not having any issues at all, so what is the issue?

    Assuming there IS an issue is the issue people are annoyed That "Bears, or other perjoratives" should not be allowed to play?
    And should pay a couple of battleships as the price to be left alone?
    Because, It is getting really hard to determine, what the motivation is.
    It doesn't help to read some peoples other posts out of this forum thread, as there are a lot of contradictions Between them.
    But I would not want to come to any conclusions.

    Common sense, would say, that if a problem exists, that problem should be considered and addressed.
    If the problem is so overwhelming that the game would be seriously damaged or even destroyed, one of the suggestions for discussion posted by corbexx might be considered.
    But when that apparently doesn't exist (in spite of people claiming it did), to select option X, which completely, removes a ship effectively from the game, might be considered a little "excessive"?

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    You two talk amongst yourselves, If you come up with something of value, I am sure someone will notice.Roll

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:
    Narthe Raytei wrote:
    jeez, when other people, in fits designed to catch people (not pvp ships), say they are impossible to catch; they must be wrong because "I caught one this one time."

    And btw, i'm not calling you stupid because you're wrong. i'm calling you stupid because you continue to disregard what everyone else in the thread is saying about the impossible-ness of catching one, and continue to think about only your opinion.

    I'm done with this, no need to argue with the one person who thinks everyone else is wrong.


    Perhaps we can just ignore him and keep discussing the issue?

    What are your thoughts regarding my proposed changes?

    Frankly mental.
    Removing the ability for the yacht to have interdiction nullification in all space is simply that.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Narthe Raytei wrote:
    jeez, when other people, in fits designed to catch people (not pvp ships), say they are impossible to catch; they must be wrong because "I caught one this one time."

    And btw, i'm not calling you stupid because you're wrong. i'm calling you stupid because you continue to disregard what everyone else in the thread is saying about the impossible-ness of catching one, and continue to think about only your opinion.


    Ok, if you look through Zkillboard and do not find yachts being caught, then I will concurr that they are impossible.
    But that is not the issue and never was.

    Corbexx asked for feedback, to deal with a problem, he never stated it was due to the story of TDSIN, but it was pretty clear, NDA after all.

    He did not say that he wanted to make it so all evasion fit, ships could be caught easily, and note almost the first comments from some, were to also nerf T3. This made their true motivations clear.

    If we can deal with the real issue, rather than the upset, that not all ships can be easily caught, then we may provide something that is of help to him.

    So how do we help cure the new Griefing mechanics that are currently using the yacht, but will use other ships if the yacht is amended?

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Narthe Raytei wrote:
    epicurus ataraxia wrote:
    If disagreeing is stupid, I welcome that, please look at the killboards that are available, and you will see that somehow magically, people have managed to kill them.
    Of course they could ALL be bad.

    But we have gone through pages of discussion, with many points raised and discussed, and somehow we have come full circle to

    "You Are stupid, because I am right"

    Such a waste of effort, I should just have insulted people in the beginning and we would have just gone "no you!" No you!"
    For a few pages.


    You yourself have said you have never managed to catch one.....

    I did, we have not seen many, and never in numbers. And trying to catch them in a standard PVP fleet is NEVER going to be possible.

    Hence from My own experience, they have not seemed a problem, but there are tales that certain groups are finding large groups of yachts causing them real problems.

    Possibly we should focus on the problems that exist.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    If disagreeing is stupid, I welcome that, please look at the killboards that are available, and you will see that somehow magically, people have managed to kill them.
    Of course they could ALL be bad.

    But we have gone through pages of discussion, with many points raised and discussed, and somehow we have come full circle to

    "You Are stupid, because I am right"

    Such a waste of effort, I should just have insulted people in the beginning and we would have just gone "no you!" No you!"
    For a few pages.

    But thank you for your contribution, do you have anything to offer, that could help Corbexx actually deal with this issue?

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    What?
    Remove the ONLY feature of the yacht, that makes it the yacht?
    Make it totally no use whatsoever in any space?

    So basically please REMOVE THE YACHT FROM THE GAME.Shocked
    I thought you were suggesting make the higgs disable interdiction, not just execute the entire class of ship.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:
    epicurus ataraxia wrote:
    Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:
    Narthe Raytei wrote:
    @chesire I would welcome its continued use as a cheap rolling ship, as long as it wasn't impossible to catch, and i think at this point this thread has changed from "this sounds like a good fix" to "RAWR WHAI R U SO DUMB"

    @Epicurus You don't seem to understand that even a single yacht is impossible to catch without pilot error. there is no reasonable way to catch a yacht, even in an inty with a million sebos and rem sebos. and before you say anything about the allign time, they can still fit a cloak, making them IMPOSSIBLE to catch.



    I agree with you 100%.

    I feel that removing its bubble interdiction while a signifigant nerf, would not be as immense as some of the proposals here.

    A lot of the major people pushing for t3s and yachts to be able to not cloak and bubble interdict are blessed with a massive fleet that means that most of the time they can roll in impunity regardless of who they are connected too.

    We need to be thinking of both sides of the coin and that is why is implore CCP to be consistant with how they have applied changes with such a wide reaching impact and take small steps.

    A slight increase in agility and removal of interdiction nullification from the yacht hull specifically is both impactful and light handed.

    The problem is if your suggested changes are applied, although it removes reasonable uses, in LOclass WH space, It does not solve the problem.

    When using swarms (size of which depends on the hole) the hole can be shut, before a defense/blocking fleet can be set up.
    So agility, nullification, are completely irrelevant. They have no one to avoid.

    This would not help TDsin to counter the griefing they are reported to be suffering.

    The only way to solve that issue is to address that SPECIFIC issue.



    My changes would absolutely stop TDSIN's problem.

    They would scan a hole, drop a HIC on it, then laugh as the yachts hit the bubble.

    Even if they made it through to the other side and closed it, they would die on the inside of the hole because they are trapped in the bubble.

    Ten seconds later, the counter to that is warp from a safe, and come in under cloak.
    The problem we have, is the pandoras box has been opened, whatever we do, with things as they stand, will not work. Remove nullification with a higgs on the yacht, just bring more, and don't fit higgs..
    Now this f*ckwittery, has been discovered, jumping large amounts of small ships, through a hole, will continue, unless that is blocked somehow.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:
    Narthe Raytei wrote:
    @chesire I would welcome its continued use as a cheap rolling ship, as long as it wasn't impossible to catch, and i think at this point this thread has changed from "this sounds like a good fix" to "RAWR WHAI R U SO DUMB"

    @Epicurus You don't seem to understand that even a single yacht is impossible to catch without pilot error. there is no reasonable way to catch a yacht, even in an inty with a million sebos and rem sebos. and before you say anything about the allign time, they can still fit a cloak, making them IMPOSSIBLE to catch.



    I agree with you 100%.

    I feel that removing its bubble interdiction while a signifigant nerf, would not be as immense as some of the proposals here.

    A lot of the major people pushing for t3s and yachts to be able to not cloak and bubble interdict are blessed with a massive fleet that means that most of the time they can roll in impunity regardless of who they are connected too.

    We need to be thinking of both sides of the coin and that is why is implore CCP to be consistant with how they have applied changes with such a wide reaching impact and take small steps.

    A slight increase in agility and removal of interdiction nullification from the yacht hull specifically is both impactful and light handed.

    The problem is if your suggested changes are applied, although it removes reasonable uses, in LOclass WH space, It does not solve the problem.

    When using swarms (size of which depends on the hole) the hole can be shut, before a defense/blocking fleet can be set up. Or even warped to the hole!
    So agility, nullification, are completely irrelevant. They have no one to avoid.

    This would not help TDsin to counter the griefing they are reported to be suffering.

    The only way to solve that issue is to address that SPECIFIC issue.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Narthe Raytei wrote:
    @chesire I would welcome its continued use as a cheap rolling ship, as long as it wasn't impossible to catch, and i think at this point this thread has changed from "this sounds like a good fix" to "RAWR WHAI R U SO DUMB"

    @Epicurus You don't seem to understand that even a single yacht is impossible to catch without pilot error. there is no reasonable way to catch a yacht, even in an inty with a million sebos and rem sebos. and before you say anything about the allign time, they can still fit a cloak, making them IMPOSSIBLE to catch.


    Singles, are catchable, it happens all the time, but it does need specialist fleets, such as exist in Lowsec and null.
    Admittedly they are very hard to do so, we have not caught one yet, but we have not seen that many.
    They appear on killboards regularly, and some with better align fits than a holeroller can fit.

    There is however, absolutely no way of stopping large numbers closing the hole, Even if we DID catch one it would be meaningless, and they would just carry on.

    Should that not be where we should be focusing? Rather than nerfing them in all space, and all uses, which still would not solve the issues caused by this new Swarm technique?

    (Some seem to dislike that phrase) rename it if you wish, but it seems appropriate.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Winthorp wrote:
    epicurus ataraxia wrote:
    blah blah blah no my yatchs be nerfed man blah blah blah.


    Seriously stop with this swarm bullshit you are carrying on with, even one of them is OP.

    Go back to BS rolling son.


    Winthrop, I thought I made it clear, that we would not use these because it would lead to fewer fights for us.
    I would hate to see LOclass wh space lose any more people because a valuable tool was removed from small or inexperienced groups.

    After all how much fun is there when a couple of people face a wolfpack on their static? Logoff or go home, is not a choice that will keep them in wormhole space, but you know I have said this already.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Narthe Raytei wrote:
    It is literally impossible to catch a Yacht without the pilot making an error, even living on top of the server with a heck ton of remote sensor boosters will never give you enough lock speed to beat the server ticks.

    Also just to point out Epicurus, i don't think you actually understand the game of rock, paper, scissors. every option has a way of beating it. Nothing (sane) catches a yacht. nothing.


    Yachts die all the time, there are Large numbers of killmails that attest to that. I totally agree, they are hard, and rolling fits are unable to fit for fast align evasion. Hard, But they are not impossible.

    But if you have 8 coming through the hole at once, you have absolutely no way of stopping them whatsoever.
    That is a serious issue, and I understand that is causing some real problems.

    We should be seriously trying to find a means of dealing with multiple higgs yachts, they almost border on Griefing, or maybe even step over it.

    Let's together try to find a means of dealing with that edge case, and it is an extreme edge case, without destroying reasonable uses for those who gain the means to continue playing when facing (for them) impossible odds.

    I stress, We have never used them, as wormholes are great generators of good fights, and that would be a great shame for us, but there are thos who need a tool to balance their small numbers, and inexperience.

    Let us all work together,reasonably, to find a solution, that is both in balance and fair to all groups, and eliminate the Griefing possibilities.

    Even if people believe, that no yacht should have the current benefits, can we focus on the point I believe we all agree on, that no ship or fit, should be able to do what is apparently happening to TDSin, and try to make sure that we can suggest reasonable defences or action against that.

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:
    I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

    I dont think swarm rolling is really the issue, because the issue is just how uncatchable the yachts are. people would just send through less yachts at once to avoid the issue and the problem is exactly the same only slower.

    It is exactly like someone responded to the "dont let them fit bs prop mods" people would just send less yachts at once and still roll the hole in complete utter safety.

    I dont agree with you that this is the problem, and I believe my suggestions are reasonable and a great step forward.


    Removing nullification from the yacht, makes the yacht pointless as a hole roller.
    Just bubble and the tool, is useless against a large hostile group on ones static.
    Making T3 even less agile, the same applies.

    We both seemed to agree, that the swarming of holes, was apparently a major problem, like tdsin's current issues.
    I Would like to find, and suggest, to CCP a means of preventing grief rolling.

    Not to make it so no one has a counter to a hostile fleet on ones hole and no counter for a small group other than log off.

    Is that not a valid goal?

  • Yachts, yachts, yachts. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:
    epicurus ataraxia wrote:
    Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:
    epicurus ataraxia wrote:
    Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:
    MY POST


    What a shame, It started off so reasonably, up to the final -- and then it became clear it was a stealth nerf evasion reply.
    You must really hate Evasion fit ships it seems, and your final comments are contradited by your early ones.

    We noticed.


    It went from children must be allowed to play it is good for everyone, and they will grow into healthy adults. Into "Except for your children", they are annoying, to fix the issue we can cut off the legs of your son, and just the feet off your daughter, that'll make them easy to catch and punish, that's fair isn't it?



    Honestly, I'm a big fan of the yachts and t3s the way they are now, but when I hear about what is going on in TDSINs home right now... they MUST be fixed.

    TDSIN right now cannot do ANYTHING on their EU timezone because some douchebag just signs in 8 yachts and closes their static repeatedly. There is no way to counter it, no way to stop it.

    The changes I proposed are slight modifications that any reasonable wormhole corp should be able to still handle. Yachts can be used to close holes in the chain reasonably well, and reasonably safely.

    If it is a hostile hole, t3s can still be used albeit a bit more catchable because of increased cloak time.

    I DONT agree with leaving them in their current versions, however I dont agree with a heavy handed approach right now either.



    In retrospect we agree far more than we disagree, the events that are being reported in the TDSin system go far beyond, the reasonable use of any ship or tool, this is The swarm rolling I discussed that has the potential to be not just disruptive but totally destructive, It is effectively Griefing.

    Like Griefing it is not the tool at fault, it is the use of it to create said griefing.

    The use in the main, of any Evasion fit ship, is a rational and sensible counter to larger fleets making closing the hole either non sensible, or suicidal , and that results in no fun for anyone.

    This is quite something else.
    Twiddling with these ships, or downright nerfing them would be an excessive and destructive action, as it effects all space and all uses.

    The dealing with this specific use, in this specific way, will it seem need to be undertaken.

    Whilst the simplest choice would be to make it impossible to roll a hole against larger numbers, that would be both foolhardy, simplistic, and harmful.

    But let us try to offer options to deal with this SPECIFIC EDGE CASE.

    Some possibilities would be to in some way focus on swarm rolling.
    One idea is to prevent multiple Higgs rigs active on the same grid, but it has been pointed out, that would affect miners.
    One other is that more than three higgs ships passing a wormhole would destabilise the hole for a period.

    I am sure, If we stay focused, and avoid the temptation to nerf everything to make killing everything easy, then sensible and intelligent people can come up with good ideas, to deal with this specific situation in a focused and surgical way.



    Unfortunately, I dont agree with you. I think that the yachts losing interdiction means that they can still do their primary role without being heavily overpowered, and if there is bubbles on the field you can just use t3's.

    I dont agree with proposals saying to remove interdiction from both as I feel it is extremely heavy handed and only benefits the loudest complainers who want to sit their massive fleets on a hole and quench any sort of content for a smaller group.


    We are very close to the same position, I do not see any threat from two or three yachts, we should not expect to catch every bird.
    And there is some fun trying to catch or disrupt them. In my eyes, they are giving it a good go at trying to keep playing.

    Swarms however, quite a different story, we need to focus on that issue, so as not to get swamped in the " other way of thinking"

    If you have any ideas of how the hole rolling of multiple Higgs rigged ships, could be disrupted, that would be very valuable.

    Another option would be that if more than 4 higgs rigged ships, were to jump within 30 seconds, they would lose the use of all ship modules for one minute.

    Or alternatively same conditions, but unable to warp for a period.

    I wish I knew what was possible to be implemented within the code, with minimal impact and developer time that made the use of more than 4 Higgs rigged ships barely possible or at high risk in a very short time.

    One would need to make it so large numbers of higgs rigged ships were rendered at high risk of destruction, or simply unable to ram their way enmasse through the hole.

    Ideas Please.

Forum Signature

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE