EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2011-01-21 20:11
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-07 20:08
  • Number of Posts: 332
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

handige harrie

Security Status 0.0
  • Vereenigde Handels Compagnie Member since

Last 20 Posts

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

    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one.


    add a hull bonus (or to the panic module):

    Due to its specialized features the Rorqual :

    - can't fit entosis module.
    - can't fit ewar modules.

    just like intreceptors with the entosis restriction.

    Now both point #1 and #3 are taken care off, while point#2 is still wide available (i don't see how #2 is a bad thing)

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

    The Slayer wrote:
    The problem with making panic a "Can't use ECM while active" is you can still jump in, get initial tackle on something THEN hit the PANIC when you go into hull. Then second rorq gets tackle. Rinse repeat.


    just add something to the PANIC module;

    - when PANIC module is fit, can't fit tackle.

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

    Sister Bliss wrote:

    Surely reduced ore respawn rates or dimished resources which would force territorial conflict is a better answer? Instead we're force fed a mind numbing solution to a problem of I don't know what. We want more tools for self reliance and generating conflict, not more agonizing tedium.

    What actually is the design problem these changes are meant to resolve?


    CCP isn't interested in solutions to a problem. At this point i just think they design their game drunk. If the problem with rorquals is the amount that is mined, just time ore anomalies the same as ice belts so you can't infinite mine them. If PANIC tackling things is the problem, change it to you can't use EWAR when you are in PANIC and you can't activate PANIC when ewar modules are active..

    There are so many more elegant design solutions than what CCP wants with this, it's painful to see them blundering along.

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

    What about excavator drone costs?

    This just reads as the biggest fuckup in introducing an overpowerd feature that can't be properly balanced since introducing Super capitals

  • Eve Online: Hardcore Mode in EVE Technology and Research Center

    You can already do this. Just train a character and delete it once you get podded.

  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
    handige harrie wrote:

    [/b]

    I think it's a bad thing they way it's set up now. It gives players the ability to just skip over parts of the game (interdictors, gatecamps and bubbles) and bypass mechanics without real counter.




    SmartBombs


    That doesn't solve any of the points, being killed by a smartbomb is because the nullified pilot did something wrong, not because of some great counter gameplay.

    You won't kill Slippery pete's with smartbombs, you won't kill alpha claws with smartbombs, since they can choose their targets easily and disengage faster than you can activate your bombs. The only thing a smartbomb counters is dumb travelcaptors.

  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?


    I think it's a bad thing they way it's set up now. It gives players the ability to just skip over parts of the game (interdictors, gatecamps and bubbles) and bypass mechanics without real counter.

    The way it's set up now with cloaky nullified almost insta warping Tech 3 cruisers, insta warping or stabbed interceptors it's just a mess and leads too all sort of weird fringe stuff like Slippery Pete's, Alpha Claws and cyno ceptors. Which are all amazing at not committing to a fight and grid, while being able to do some decent damage numbers and having a real impact without being able to or fight them make a mistake themselves.

    For Tech 3 cruisers shooting out to 250km while being nullified makes no sense and is just not fitting, those ranges should be the area of long range battleships and require a similar committent to the battlefield in terms of engageability.

    if the ability to fit a cloak, shoot out to ******** ranges for a cruiser hull and stabs would be removed from nullified ships (or remove nullification from ships that have those fitted) , it would be fine for Tech 3 frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser hulls.

    How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?

    non combat ships are a tough one. On one hand it's handy and fitting for them (like the Yacht), but nullified blockade runners would be way to powerful for the cargo hold size. A transport frigate sized hull with nullification would be cool though, transport Tech 3 cruisers are in a good spot in that regard. They serve a niche without being disruptive (not a too big cargo hold).

    Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?

    I like gameplay elements that give players the means to alter the space they live in and customize it how they see fit. Bubbles will just never be a 'fun' item for the people they are used against, that is the whole purpose of them. I would lower their HP and build costs accordingly. If you get caught you can just shoot them and get out faster, but they still serve the purpose of disrupting your access and giving defenders the ability to have a short while to get themselves sorted or get save.

    They do serve a purpose of buying time for players to get safe. Removing them from the game will just cause those players to live in even more remote areas (only last system of pipes, scouts in more systems out). CCP just introduced a rebranded ship to counter this (rorqual) and I think that is enough. Players who don't want to pvp would just adapt to there being no bubbles, so removing them serves no role except creating more empty space for players to complain about.

    Which is a fun topic in itself and almost the same as China's Fishing practices in which they kill everything in their waters and complain that there is no more fish and then causing a uproar and start fishing in other countries territorial waters, causing all kinds of international accidents, while playing dumb 'we are just fisherman trying to make a living, we have no fish in our waters'. Instead of fixing the problem.

    Heavy ships like battleships should be less effected by them than smaller ships. Since they are a delaying tactic and heavy ships aren't known for their speed already.

  • Bank accounts with divisions + access lists in EVE Technology and Research Center

    You can open up a bank account with any of the banking NPC corporations in EVE. This can be done remotely. Opening up a bank account has a monthly cost, that is dependent on the number of divisions you open. Like corp divisions, 7 is the max you can open per character. The more divisions you want, the more ISK per month you pay. There should be two kinds of Bank accounts. One for industrialists who don’t do a lot of trading and a trading account for those who like to trade a lot and will have lots of transactions.

    Why two kinds of accounts? Because it suits different playstyles better. Paying 200M per month for 3 transactions is stupid, but so is paying 1M per transaction while having 200 transactions per day.

    The costs of the trading accounts could be structured like this (flat fee):

    1 Bank account Division costs 50M per month
    2 Bank account Divisions cost 100M per month
    3 Bank account Divisions cost 140M per month
    4 Bank account Divisions cost 170M per month
    5 Bank account Divisions cost 180M per month
    6 Bank account Divisions cost 190M per month
    7 Bank account Divisions cost 200M per month

    The costs of Industrial accounts could be structured like this (pay per journal line):

    7 Bank account Divisions cost 50M per month.
    Then an additional fee of 1M isk per journal entry.

    the ISK per month will be taken from the first Division, if there is not enough ISK in the first Division the amount will go negative and you won’t be able to use any of the account unless it is to transfer money to the first division (incl. closing them) until you fill up the first division to 0 or a positive amount again.

    To make things more fun and handy to use between players. These accounts should be able to use an access list so the owner of the bank account can give query, send and take roles to other players. Corporations and alliance can be added to the access list aswell.

    This would allow people to finally have divisions to play with, without having to open up alt corps and allow multiple players to set up trading and production, while not being in the same corporation and give alliances the option to have SRP wallets without the need for alts in special corps etc.

    Why have costs at all? Because i like isk sinks and the game could use some more.

  • [December] Excavator Mining Drone yield rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    if CCP wanted to make the excavator drones cheaper, they would've just halved the ingredient cost. Which would've solved the actual problem instead of trying some half handed (CCPs favourite way of dealing with things, except heavy missiles) possibly maybe solution.

    The only decent thing at this point is decreasing the time the core is cycles to 1 minute, like bastion.

  • Improving Mobile Tractor Units and Escalation Sharing in EVE Technology and Research Center

    why not just warp your alt who has to scoop up the MTU to the super once you finished the site and wait for your heavy fighters to get back and drop an MTU with him, when he is in warp, warp the super to the next site?

    there is no problem here except people being lazy.

  • Specialized Mini ORE Freighters? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Gallente have a whole range of beautiful specialized haulers already. If you're looking for something bigger get a DST. There is no need to anything like that. ORE would also be the wrong faction for it, they only do in mining gear and mining support and the misplaced Bowhead, which should've been a racial ship or Interbus ship but CCP didn't want to put more resources in designing it and put some half effort in. imho It should've gone to Interbus, after they started to ship goods for the SCC across the cluster.

  • Mining Drones - Asteroid Depleted in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Gadget Helmsdottir wrote:
    Stoney Entity wrote:
    When mining lasers finish mining an asteroid, the UI says (audio/visual) "Asteroid depleted". Could we have the same happen when a mining drone depletes and asteroid?


    Is there a message for drones destroying a ship? No?

    Then I agree with Iain.

    I think the asteroid lock flashes before it disappears. That should be enough of a notice for someone paying the minimum of attention. Besides...
    Quote:
    EvE has sound???


    --Gadget



    by your logic mining drones should auto target the next astroid and start mining as soon as you put drones on them manually, like combat drones do. So much for the need to pay attention.....

  • PI -copy setup in EVE Technology and Research Center

    This would be extremely helpful and time saving, I run 30 planets, which all use only 2 different layouts (Extractors and Factories). This would save players many hours frustration.

  • [New structures] Market Hubs and Drilling Platforms in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I hope for Drilling Platforms CCP will give us some fun new mechanics and service modules, that change more than just simply enabling something.

    Like with Drilling Platforms, keep the cost of the medium one super low, like 250M isk and then make them more expensive through the cost and upkeep of service modules, like mining posses are now (R8 is only odne with small posses etc.)


    if you want to use them for moon mining, you install the R8, R16, R32 or R64 service module. Each module costs more money up front and more upkeep.

    The biggest changes would be 4 fold.

    - Gasses will not be mined from moons anymore.
    - If a Mining service module is installed, the structure loses 1 reinforce timer (shield)
    - Medium Drilling platforms will lose the ability to repair tethered ships.
    - a Drilling platform with mining service module, gets increased vulnerability timers the better the installed service module is. R64 mining should make the structure vulnerable 24/7.

    They would also get a couple of new features.

    - They get a huge bonus to hourly cost of reprocessing service modules.
    - Ships bigger than cruisers can't dock in Medium ones, bigger than battlecruisers can't dock in Large Drilling platforms. Freighters and Jump freighters and all cargo hauling industrials (no ORE) can dock too. Rorquals can dock in the Large Drillingplatform.
    - Every time there is usage of a service module, excess gasses get expelled. These can mined with a Gas Harvester and be easily reacted to the R4 gasses, we won't get anymore from moon mining. Alpha clones can use this new way to get familiar with Reacting and should be able to run 1 basic reaction (this would be basic reaction in the game, the rest are simple reactions).
    - Reactions themselves can be done if proper service modules are installed, new skills get implemented. Max amount of reactions gets limited to 5. (if you don't have the basic skill, you can't react)
    - Reactions should be done semi automatically, like they're done now, but the silo and reactor array are all inside the structure, so you can set it up docked and check material levels through the Industrial window.
    - Multiple Drilling platforms mining the same moon share the goo per hour, so 4 platforms on a 200 material moon, each gets 50.

    I hope CCP will do much more with service modules than they did in the last 2 structures (Citadels and ECs), they are a really cool feature with a lot more potential than they have shown us soo far.

  • More freighter / industrial undocking bays on the Sotiyo in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Please give the Sotiyo more undocking bays for Freighters, it's the biggest EC structure yet it has the same amount of undock points for freighters and jump freighters as a Raitaru.

    Whenever more than 6 freighters undock at almost the same time, it looks like **** for an XL structure, while the structure itself looks awesome. It deserves more undock points (which is just 2 now) for the shiptype that is made to utilize the structure.

  • Multiple Clients in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Took me some time to figure it all out, but both your points seemed to be correct in some way.

    At first I tried the solution posted on the wiki to get a separate Xserver running, Launcher ran, game launched and i could select a character and see some chat channels etc (it did load very slowly). but the 3d scenery didn't want to load.

    Than i remembered fedora25 Gnome uses Wayland, so i switched to a different version, still included that uses Xorg. Now the clients are running way better (like they should), but now i guess i'm hitting your second point, hdd speed and maybe GPU drivers. The hdd that i use for linux and eve under linux is just a slow older storage disk, i normally use a SSD to run eve under windows.

    a learning experience :).

    Thanks for the help.

  • Let Citadel/EC owners choose which ads play in their structures in EVE Technology and Research Center

    it's really weird that you can sit in a citadel you own, but you see the ads of your 'enemies' playing all the time.

    Just make a menu in which you can select the ads you see, or base it on standings / subject.

    so for example you can block all alliance ads. but still see adds for pushX, or other services.
    or choose that you only see ads from your own alliance and allies.

    things like that

  • Concerning the Excavator adjustment and a posseble solution (edited) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    if CCP wanted to fix the rorqual, the easiest solution was to just set the Ore nnomaly belts on a 4 hour respawn timer like icebelts have. This way you can't hover up a belt every hour anymore unless you're prepared to move.

  • Chinese version client for EVE required in EVE Technology and Research Center

    +1 there already is a Chinese client, so someone already did the legwork.

    You can change the chatchannel to get more than 50 people yourselves, as long as someone can change the settings (Channel owner or moderator).

    Click on the chat channel and select the cogwheel 'Channel Settings'
    Click Open Channel settings window
    Change Memberlist to Delayed Mode.

  • Multiple Clients in EVE Technology and Research Center

    as a new Linux user, using fedora25 with an older computer with 8gb ram core I5 2500k @3,3 ghz, AMD Radeon HD 6970 2GB ram, (that on W10 runs 4 clients like a breeze on low settings).

    With all settings to low:

    1 client runs smooth
    2 clients docked runs smooth (gaven't tested undocked)
    3 clients docked runs smooth (haven't tested undocked)
    4 clients docked runs smooth (all run at 50+ fps)

    as soon as I undock 1 client with 4 clients running, the performance drops to unplayable levels. The weird thing is I don't think it's EVE. the ingame FPS counter still gives me 50+ FPS on all clients, but the whole OS grinds to a halt and doing anything is impossible, since the mouse won't work properly anymore.

    On the standard resource monitor in Gnome, CPU usage is at 60-70% accos all cores, swap isn't used and total memory usage is 4.9GB.

Forum Signature

Baddest poster ever