EVE Information Portal

So what happens when they aren't actually completely bilaterally symmetrical as is the case with the new Exequror?

That calls the motive into question as the same tactics could be applied to old models as well. But the real test would be finding these half models/textures and the asymmetrical "parts" in the client files. To my knowledge this hasn't been done despite some models being found of newer, slightly asymmetrical ships not too long ago.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but that evidence doesn't support the reasoning unless I'm missing something.

I really, really, REALLY hope you guys will rethink the combat recon rebalance.
The problem isn't so much them being immune to d-scan, as it is the combination of that and them basically being a HAC landing on your grid that you can't detect.
At least the force recons are fairly flimsy and easy to kill (in exchange for their immunity to d-scan in the form of cloaking).

Or allow us to fit a module to allow our d-scan to detect them at least...
On that note, maybe even a module to extend your d-scan range - possibly at the cost of resolution (being able to tell ship-type) ?

When is the next Tactical Destroyer being released?

If we're not getting the next tactical destroyer in proteus, could we at least get the tactical destroyer skill books, so we're ready to rock when the others come out?

Here a little Update from a Player

If even the Corps to be revised, then I would have some suggestions:
Maybe you get sometimes a response from the concerned personnel who read these ideas forward, or perhaps even a comment would be nice.

1. Corp: transfer money to the main account should also be simplified for the members here, that is that you can transfer money from his account. What my Noobs only about detours is possible!
Example: Corp looking at the bar / click, click Corp_logo, a new window opens Search Corp name and next click on the info button, then click in the new window at the top left on the 4 strokes, giving money .... far too cumbersome in my opinion

Currently: Awkward on the way as described above or the CEO and directors, which unnecessarily forces back and forth the money! Constant check whether the payments comply with the goods issues !!! We want to play !!!

2. Station : enable station hangar sale, I've Equipment, Skills, and ships are for Noobs in my hangar and must take everything into their own hands if I want to sell it to them. Why not just allow the corp hangar, as a sale, just for the Corp? Saves the director responsible a lot of work to spend and what the terms flying back and forth! If any members that need and every 5 minutes from the pretty annoying!

3. Station: can sort or classify hangar better, the seven main hangars, should be able to be classified under way, according to need, we have a lot of stuff lying on station and tens of thousands of containers where everything is in it!
The hangar, with different benenn ble Labels share that one example Skills and blueprints can be distributed in the related subcategories.

4. Position: Personal hangars should be appreciated as well as the station hangar of the members, if I do have to break down what I destroy one probably unintentionally something, one probably should also be possible that you can remove the stuff out of the hangar as a package as CEO and the Members may determine as contractual.

5. EVE-Mail: mailing system, one probably should be revised times so you can for example set instances, post is to write to the entire Corp. yes easy. But one probably should not consider a title related mailings. Post only for directors, post only for the CEO / Co-CEO

6. Corp: The entire system Corp revise my Director of the Corp has made to award the title, had already complete a half EVE-study so that we at all times a clear view of what had what items are fixed. Where are the Info button, dammit. And please no official German course when it comes. We do not want to study play!

7. Corp: Corp Logo, the possibility also upload their own thing? nothing against the kits but they are probably a bit poor. Then you could make a lot more drauß if you sometimes can even ran. Or, more options give the designs as a shield crest quarters can (4 elements in a choice), allow color coding (instead of just the 16 color standard), may be allowed to integrate what itself (self-created graphics upload as with alliances),

8. Ship Designs: Colors of ships, one probably can create a color designer? For example, the ships Corp uniformly plate? must not be much yes, STO can design all compatible with each other.

9. Corp: Adjust the Auto-discharge. This means that you can set periods in which players Corp be removed.
(Member XY is for 2 months without apology Offline, kick)
(Member YX is for 2 months with apologies offline, remains)
Save-time on the part of the directors and CEO who want to keep their Corp clean.

so that it was only once, as far as I think.

Since SP clones are gone, and since the risk vs. reward of high-sec ganking is ridiculously now in favor of the reward, I'd like to suggest that pods of outlaws (-5 sec status or lower) become valid free-for-all high-sec targets, with no sec status penalties for shooting them.

Gotta keep that risk vs reward thing balanced.... :)

Structure survey sucked big time. The survey was unfortunately written in a way where many questions are understandable only to CCP and CSM insiders who have a common understanding based on a very long discussion history of these topics. Sometimes the survey creator just goes too far in use of vagueness as a quick way to pursuit neutrality between choices.

EVE players in general do not know which concepts/implementations have already been depreciated by the development team and CSM as less practical or undesirable. Survey takers might confuse rejected ideas with ideas still under consideration due to seeming similar in many aspects prior to critical analysis. Its clear that the survey creator forgets at times that the general EVE population does not know what the final candidate choices are and how those choices are named.

A lot of vagueness came from undefined terminology that is not yet very standardized across EVE. Survey takers were left to take their own uninformed guess as to what terminology meant. The survey needed a Wiki dictionary link to nail down the fine but critical points of each term or to use an introductory paragraph before question in lieu of undefined shorthand terms. In fact some terms might still be fairly unique to CCP and CSM insiders who have been evolving shorthand for repeated CONFIDENTIAL discussions on certain topics.



CONCLUSION:
Future surveys need quality assurance testing before release. Two or three levels of critique by someone other than the team insiders and survey creator. All testing should attempt to ensure clarity to someone new to the discussion / choices. The last step should presenting the survey to a small cross-section group of players -- ones not working with CSM.

Obviously even the best survey will have many subtleties that are not going to be clear to noobs or those who never play that aspect of EVE. But simply never having discussed the topic with GMs or reading 100% of the forums every day should not be a bar to those who do use those aspects of EVE.

Yeah, I got caught with that one.

I spent weeks trying to figure out why my Gallente main's standing with the Center for Advanced Studies had taken a sudden nose-dive.

Then I discovered that rule and realised I had repeatedly blown up and podded one of their members who had been misbehaving.