EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2008-10-13 19:32
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-14 21:23
  • Number of Posts: 174
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

paritybit

Security Status -9.8
  • Repo. Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [Kronos] Factional Warfare Complex Improvements in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Just posting to say that timer rollbacks are a much better and more complete solution than disabling cloaks which causes as many problems as it solves. Use the carrot instead of the stick. Make them want to stay but don't force them. Treat warping out and coaching up in the same way. This makes it more lucrative for pilots who are actually willing to fight for their LP. I and many others have suggested this in the past. Some of them are already popping up in this thread.

    I am certainly not a fan of arriving in a complex to engage in honorable frigate one versus one combat only to have a handful of recons uncloak around me. So I am not unhappy with the change. But this doesn't really change that since they will just cloak up outside of the beacon's range anyway. Similarly, FW farmers will simply sit on the edge and move a few meters to cloak when I land as they always do. The only difference here is they have to move which makes my current solution to catch them (probes) doomed to failure from now on.

  • An enigma wrapped in a mystery in EVE Technology and Research Center

    What about double wrapped packages prevents you from ganking them now? Nothing is preventing you from locking and pressing F1.

  • Healthy plex market ! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hairpins Blueprint wrote:
    not relly, is single person dry up the market and than just sell 1/10 of the stock for 20%+ or more ...


    Eventually he's going to have to sell them all back, use them all or he's lost money on the deal. Either way, supply and demand still has a hold on the system.

  • [Development] CCP Welcome to the Mobile Era In Gaming in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ice Dealer wrote:
    Using Extreme Programming Practices ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_programming_practices ) (an Agile software development methodology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development )), develop the following Android App:

    This app would support the following, and in order of waterfall ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model ) priority:


    There was absolutely no reason to specify any more detail in this post than to suggest they develop a mobile application that allows players to act on their docked characters and let them perform actions they could perform while logged in and docked.

    For one thing, you have completely misunderstood what the waterfall model is. Agile methodology and the waterfall model are methods for developing software. You can't really do both at the same time. I understand what you think the waterfall model is, but it isn't what you think it is. You didn't even read the Wikipedia entry that you linked.

    Wikipedia wrote:
    Advocates of Agile software development argue the waterfall model is a bad idea in practice—believing it impossible for any non-trivial project to finish a phase of a software product's lifecycle perfectly before moving to the next phases and learning from them.


    If you took out all the details, I would almost support your idea. I think it would be great to have another way to log into EVE. Just the other day I was staying in a hotel unable to log into EVE because I didn't have a computer capable of running it -- but I had my android tablet. If I could have logged in to fiddle with my inventory or chat with my corp mates I probably would have done it.

  • Healthy plex market ! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    When plex prices go up there is more incentive to buy a plex to sell on the market; therefore, more people are selling plex and the prices will go down as supply saturates the market. When plex prices go down, there is less incentive to purchase a plex to sell on the market. Plex just rides the natural supply and demand waves. When somebody spends real money the plex is magicked from thin air and put on the market. ISK changes hands and some leaves the system entirely through the NPC tax system. Everything is working as intended here.

  • Terrorism skills in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
    please define why its a bad idea....


    Fair enough. Primarily I think this is a bad idea because you haven't defined it at all other than listing some "bad things" that a player could do with these skills. Almost every action in the game can be countered in some way. If somebody attacks your structure with a large fleet, you can respond with a large fleet. If a player tries to catch you, you can protect yourself by knowing when he's headed toward you and leaving or prepare to defend yourself.

    How do you test for the success of planting a bomb? If you fail, how are you affected? If it always succeeds, how do you counter it? What is the penalty for flawless capability to take down someone else's infrastructure? If you can just place a bomb on a ship to blow it up, why would people bother shooting each other anymore?

    How do you prevent another player from kidnapping you? How do you measure the odds of success for a "kidnapping"? Is it a roll of the dice or is there some game mechanic involved? If there's a game mechanic involved, is there a way to defend against it by engaging in the same or similar game mechanic? Does that mean you can only kidnap somebody who is online? What's to stop me from logging off while you're trying to kidnap me?

    Jump gates are a known entity in the game. You get there and you can use it if you don't have a session change timer and you aren't actively aggressing something. It's one of the constants in the sandbox. Messing with that is just opening a big unavoidable trap.

    A bad reputation, a negative standing and lack of access to high-security space are not obstacles because every account has two possible alts -- and players wouldn't do this with their main. As a pirate, I have a negative security status and find it difficult to buy things in high-security space. But I have alternate characters who can do these things for me. It's not enough of a penalty.

  • Terrorism skills in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Seliah wrote:
    What a dumb remark. I bet you're from the USA :)


    What a dumb remark, I bet you think you're better than everybody else.

    Also, this idea is bad.

  • Jester Trek Latest Blog in EVE Communication Center

    Gogela wrote:
    In order to take a "stand" you would have to make a "rule." It would be a new rule, I think, in this case. Yes, the devs make these rules. The line in this case, however, is REALLY blurry. While I would argue the victim in this case was psychologically traumatized long before he ever started playing eve, let's for the sake of argument, assume that his response could be considered "normal". How do you pen such a rule? EvE is really hard. It's harsh. You are going to get angry at some point... typically starting out. Does a ganker cause psychological trauma? Does running an alliance and losing it through one means or another cause it? Could mittens be banned for the way he took out BoB, having caused such widespread discontent? Do people running virtually undetectable margin scams cause it? Contract scams? PLEX scams? Does Hulkageddon get you down? An extreme reaction by an individual does not necessitate extreme legislation. At some point you need to be a big boy and handle your s***. This is sensational purely due to the victim's reaction. Far worse things happen to people every day in EvE. I should know. I ganked a guy w/ 4 bill in his hauler a few weeks ago. His response? "Enjoy the nothing that dropped ******!' We both lost that day. My victim handles his smack. He's not a fan of mine, but he didn't let it get to him. Why would he? It's a game. Let's not lose the forest for the trees on this one, I say.


    In EVE is one thing. Take my isk. Take my stuff. Warp scramble my capsule. There's no line there -- it's all pretty clearly within the realm of the game. But to say, "It's okay, this is a process ... we'll give it all back if you just do us this one little thing," and then adding task upon task while recording it (without the other party's knowledge) and then publicly posting it all the while talking about how stupid he was -- well some point before we got to here there was a line crossed.

    Taking or destroying something in-game is entirely different from squashing a person's dignity regardless of whether the victim was "willing" or not.

  • Jester Trek Latest Blog in EVE Communication Center

    Just posting to say that there's a line here. It's terribly blurry, but it's there. Nobody is going to be able to clearly define it. But nobody really needs to. It makes sense to me that CCP own the game; they own all the ones and zeros that make up New Eden and story the history of every pilot to have ever flown there. If they wanted to strip the privilege of being a part of this from someone, I think they have the right.

    Now I just have to figure out how to impart my opinion that the line has been crossed here and Erotica 1 and friends are on the wrong side of it. Maybe typing this is enough; it probably isn't.

    EVE is amazing in the way it provides countless ways for players to punish other players -- when they don't necessarily deserve any punishment at all. But, when it comes to a way to punish players who are completely deserving but know how to protect themselves (alts that never leave a station or that leave a station only in a disposable ship with the expectation of being blown up) there is very little recourse. This one is not and can not be in the hands of the players.

    Once you go from scamming a player of all in-game assets and move on to crushing his dignity you've gone too far. Somewhere between those two points is the line. Please make a stand somewhere CCP.

  • Bring back the missile Inquisitor!! Or Crucifier Drone Boat. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Everyone saying the Punisher is useless has obviously not been in a faction warfare zone. These little powerhouses can pack on four warp core stabilizers. If you muck with the Punisher you're sure to meet with threats from the FW farmer crowd. Then they'd be relegated to an Incursus or the odd Magnate.

  • [Mobile Structure][Cloaking Field] in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sentamon wrote:
    But if you could hide your fleet of ships behind planets or moons, within asteroid belts, or anomalies like plasma clouds it would add a nice touch to the game.


    That's no moon.

  • Combat Boosters - eve online's neflected child.... :'( in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I give this a thumbs up for the first half (boosters need an overhaul) and a wavering thumb for the second half (specifics). I'd rather not see training boosted as the result of a booster.

  • New and more aggressive standings with 5th playable race in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I don't agree with your conclusion.

    And, further, I think that every one of the empires should be at war with every other empire. It would simplify things a lot.

  • Tech 2 Microwarpdrive Bonuses in EVE Technology and Research Center

    There was a time when the meta MWD drops were much more rare. Then one day they started dropping from every other wreck and became dirt cheap. I don't remember which expansion that was. It does seem like they are a little too common.

    But there's no excuse for increasing the speed by 20% (from 500% to 600%) or the overload bonus by 40% (from 50% to 70%).

    An overloaded microwarpdrive is already pretty powerful. It's the difference between an average frigate going 3100 m/s without overload to suddenly bursting up to 4400 m/s. 1300 m/s is faster than most frigates will go with an afterburner, and this is an increase over the 3100 m/s velocity it already has. In most cases it's not possible to react to this in time to catch a fleeing target because the module cannot be instantly overloaded (it has a lengthy cycle time). If the bonus was 70% we'd be talking about another 520 m/s.

    It probably translates a little more sanely into the 10mn variation with cruisers, but thought needs to be given to all facets here.

    * all numbers rounded slightly (always down) for readability.

  • two changes that could fix fw plexes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    This idea looks really familiar to me for some reason ...

    Also, I see one change; what is the second? Right now the biggest broken thing is all the FW farmers who are earning LP with almost zero risk. Even if their ships get blown up, they usually cost less than a million isk fitted only with guns and warp core stabilizers.

  • Do you leave your victims alive? in EVE Gameplay Center

    I'm in agreement with the other pilot who said ransom > kill; this counts for both ships and capsules. Unfortunately, some ships are just too difficult to ransom and I have to settle for catching the pod.

    Hetalia Villen wrote:
    So for those of you that ransom pods, what would your usual/generic ransom figures be?


    The answer to this is that it's highly dependent on the situation.

    If you're ransoming a ship, pay attention to what the ship is, the cost of the hull, the likeliest fit (check the last loss if you can) and insurance payout. A good starting point is usually the cost of the hull because they'll have to pay that for a new one anyway, plus the cost of the fittings. It will probably go down from there.

    If you're ransoming a capsule, pay attention to the age of the pilot and what they just lost. Ransom an older pilot who just lost a pirate cruiser starts out a lot higher than a month-old player who just lost a Venture. I tend to start off with 100,000,000, 30,000,000, 10,000,000 or 3,000,000 and work my way from there to a mutually agreeable sum.

  • Missile slots and RHML bonus for the Naga in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Attack Battle Cruisers are supposed to be for killing battleships. Rapid Heavy Missile Launchers are for killing cruisers. I don't think you're going to get any traction here.

  • D-Scan in AUs instead of km in EVE Technology and Research Center

    While you're at it, how about adding a slider as well. And a hotkey for increasing or decreasing the range. I don't want to have to move my had over to the number pad every time I need to change the range -- because I do it a lot.

    At least until the whole mechanism is fixed. It's pretty bad.

  • [REPO.] - Everybody owes something. (honorable piracy) in EVE Corporations, Alliances and Organizations Center

    We're still recruiting.

  • Balance change for ECM: Not chance-based, not max-target-based in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I really like the idea in general.

    I haven't had a lot of problems with ECM, but having flown ECM ships in the distant past on another character I understood that the chance based mechanic could have disastrous results for either side. For example, if I equipped 4 different ECM modules I could activate the first one and wait to see if it worked -- if it did not, I could activate the second (deactivating the first for the next time) and continue on until I achieved a jam -- by the time I had a jam, most of my modules would be inactive and waiting to be activated again (because the effect is either on or off, there's no stacking). Then I could use my remaining modules on another ship, or just save them for when my next failure occurred.

    If you change the mechanic in the suggested way there is no possibility of that brokenness because having all of the modules active would always be more effective than having only one active -- and that is sensible.

    It also makes remote ECCM a lot more sensible. Currently a remote ECCM modules has to be active when the ECM starts activating (that's when the chance roll is made). And you apply it to a single ship -- probably your logistics -- for the whole fight (because who is being jammed can change in an instant). This change allows it to be a reactive and flowing model where it's actively fighting off the effect of an ECM module rather than warding against something that might happen.

    I'm not sure about the part where you suggest that the ECM attacker gets to see the sensor strength of the target. An energy neutralizer doesn't get to see the target's cap. He sees the effect of the neutralization when modules go offline and the target stops fighting back. I think it should be the same with ECM in a model like this.