These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2010-05-22 15:11
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-08 15:48
  • Likes Received: 0


Security Status 4.6
  • Shadow State Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [Ascension] Phenomena Generators in EVE Technology and Research Center

    penifSMASH wrote:
    You'll get a lot of people posting here complaining because lol eve players and change, but these modules look interesting as heck and will force fleets to make tactical gameplay choices.

    The Minmatar effect on hybrid/energy turret optimal range seems a bit unfair. It's a direct counter to both armor titans while having no negative effect on shield ones, whereas neither armor titan effect generator has similar gameplay effect on shield titan weapons systems (missiles/projectiles).

    Also I feel as if the fuel usage may be a tad bit high but that's a minor issue.

    There has been a lot of unfairness to the Minmatar titan for a long time. For cap battles, the signature radius bonus is pretty useless. That really should be addressed, maybe they were somehow trying to compensate for it idea.

  • Testing for Multifitting/Bulkfitting in EVE Technology and Research Center

    How about the cargo bay? Can we specify that given extra mods, mobile depot, nanite paste, etc, be in there as well, and with multi-fit?

  • [February] Force Auxiliary Skills in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Why not just convert the skill for Tactical Logistics into the FAX skill?

    So, you can fly a FAX with that skill + carrier skill.

    You can fly the carrier with carrier skill + fighter skill.

  • Why not accrue time where characters' training queues are inactive? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    One issue would be how to handle multiple pilot training. Lets say that you have two pilots training and their queues run out, or you activate a certificate/plex, but don't initiate training. Would you then be able to apply twice as many skill points to the same character? If you never initiated training on an alt, where would the excess SPs go?

  • [December] Command Destroyers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Can you please update with the native resists? I didn't see it in the spreadsheet or posts.

  • CCP karkur - you're our only hope - new Little Things in EVE Technology and Research Center

    When there is no skill training, can you make the bar underneath the portrait on the left hand side launchbar red? That would be good if you pause before JC and you forget to restart.

  • NPE feedback Q and A in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I posted this in Reddit, and am re-posting it here to be considered


    We have been reading for some time that CCP would like to remove learning implants. Much of the feedback is implants limit the number of people willing to undock and fight since implants are destroyed when podded. This has been discussed previously where the author suggests limitations where you cannot change your skill queue for some period of time, or you could only have 1 active booster at a time. The author also suggests different strengths.

    At the same time, CCP is looking for an outlet for all the loyalty points being cashed out for the implants with something of equivalent popularity. I can't think of anything as universally desired, though. Pretty much anything related to combat either already has a hardwiring implant, and any gap could not possibly have the same demand. Some people have suggested replacing the implants with additional combat implants that would boost a whole range of skills simultaneously (like all gunnery skills), but I would think this would then be difficult to balance with gameplay. In addition,it would have significant repercussions in the hardwiring market.

    My suggestion is to replace learning implants with learning boosters. Unlike the previous suggestion, there would be no limitations, and all base attributes would be increased to +5, so no remapping. The learning boosters would have a time limit (7 days), but they would stack for duration. There would be 5 types, one for each attribute.

    New booster slots would need to be created, increasing them from 3 to 8. For people with existing implants in inventory, they would convert to stacks of boosters. A +1 would convert to a single booster, and a +5 would convert to a stack of 20. In order to reduce clicking, CCP would add to the interface an ability to inject an entire stack at once. So, a stack of 20 might last a a 4.5 months.

    For relatively new players, the implants might last longer, say a month.


    • Remove skill remaps, all attributes to max
    • All learning implants converted to +5 injectable boosters
    • Booster effect would last beyond podding
    • Boosters would stack for TIME, where a single booster might last a week
    • Loyalty points would purchase boosters, but the LP cost would have to be adjusted to account for likely market. Since these would be consumables, the LP cost per booster would be relatively low, but that would be a balance issue.
    • Booster last longer for new players

  • [Galatea] First batch of sov capture iterations in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Its a good step in the right direction, but not nearly enough.


    I do have some thoughts on getting players more engaged with the new sov system. MinigamesAttention

    Why should we have to ALT-TAB out of game to play something else when maybe CCP could instead provide some mini-games that you could play with other members of your fleet?

    While 1% of the fleet is doing entosis, the others could play

    • Poker - where you could gamble with ISK with other members in your fleet...maybe extend it to an in fleet casino
    • Eve Tanks - fleet is split in half and fights to last man standing
    • PacCommandNode - Pretend you could eat the big pill and instantly consume a node
    • Bonus Room

  • Jump Fatigue Feedback in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP should re-look at scenarios on what they want to achieve to mitigate teleportation issue before fatigue. If we could focus on the overall goal, and use the tools we currently have, I think we could have a better solution. The current fatigue does address the problem, but it goes way overboard, it not only kills teleportation, it makes even normal moves painful.

    Ask these questions:

    1. What is a reasonable amount of time for someone to be able to cross the Eve universe in a capital?
    2. What ships/ship classes are we targeting?
    3. What important variables are there? (considering such variables as # of cynos required, the amount range of ships, possible mixes of gate + jumps, and the amount of fatigue)

    Program a simulation, using the information above to study a range of options, and then ask the CSM what they think to achieve the goal.

    I would much prefer jump fatigue to be back at the same range as before, but then adjust fatigue. That would still limit power projection, but significantly mitigate the hassle of moving. I think it should remain character based as opposed to ship based.

    Also, the Rorqual should have the same range as the JF. There has been no evidence people using it as a combat platform, as was the concern.

  • Jump Fatigue Feedback in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Mimic wrote:

    With that in mind, we've been watching the comments both here on the official forums and on Reddit, and we are continuing our discussions with the CSM and continuing our efforts to take in player feedback and incorporate this into our designs for the game.

    If you have any Ideas or feedback, please add this to the forums here, as this input is a vital part of our ongoing development of EVE Online.

    There seems to be good evidence that CCP doesn't consult the CSM on anything major (i.e., "gets thrown under the bus") until there is an upset player base. At that point, the CSM is called in for damage control. This was recently noted by Elise on one of the rage threads (he wasn't raging, but just asking about the roundtable since he missed it). Unfortunately, this also results in the CSM not being entirely supportive during these times, since they were brought in after decisions were made to deal with the aftermath.

    I think working with the CSM is a good idea, but I think overall, CCP should consider re-evaluating how they use the CSM. They are under a NDA, are smart people, and like most of us, have everything to benefit from a successful Eve. Their job is to help you better understand not only what the playerbase wants, but what it really needs.

  • CCP/CSM Round Table: Jump Fatigue in Council of Stellar Management

    What are the unintended consequences of the jump changes?

    Given that there are two mechanic changes, fatigue and range, does CCP feel they can keep the goal of reducing teleportation ability by reducing the penalty of one of them.

    Has CCP given any thought to how demographic changes of the player base (age, available time), the political situation (larger blocks), and jump fatigue, may lead to less conflict.

    What are the plans for jump range and the Rorqual? Its usefulness continues to be reduced, and CCPs reasoning for giving it a short jump range revolved around its possible use as a battle platform, which is not the case (rare circumstances).

  • Dev Blog: Long-Distance Travel Changes Inbound in EVE Information Center

    I have a simple proposal that would be simple would slow down caps but still allow people to jump without a crapload of cynos.

    Make it so that a character has a jump range multiplier that starts at 100%. After your first jump, the multiplier gets reduced by 50%, unless you wait out the fatigue timer. Each subsequent jump is 50% lower.

    For instance, a carrier has a maximum range of 14.625 LY. The multiplier starts at 100%

    First jump: 14.625 LY
    Second jump: 7.3 LY
    Third jump: 3.6 LY
    Fourth jump: 1.8 LY

    That serves the intended objective of being able to fly around eve quickly.

    The timer is with the character, so even if they switch ships, they still get the same % applied. One could do a little monkeying with the base range, but it should be larger than 5 LY and people can keep the same cyno route as long as they slow down jumping.

    JFs and Rorquals would still get the timer reduction bonus.

  • Dev Blog: Long-Distance Travel Changes Inbound in EVE Information Center

    This is a terrible idea, are they trying to make jumping like POS work? CCP's solution is to make things a grind.

    So, if CCP has been working with the CSM on this, what is their feedback?

    I perfectly agree with slowing down capitals, and the timer idea isn't that bad, but having to move cynos around to jump sounds painful, with very little added value.

  • Nullsec Moon-Goo Distribution in EVE Communication Center

    Considering how much work it is to scan thousands of moons, I don't see anyone wanting to share accurate data for no possible benefit. The very same alliances that you want to siphon goo from have no incentive to share this data.

  • The collectors edition is nice but... in EVE Communication Center

    I would be careful on that, sounds very close to RMT.

  • Announcement regarding rewards and prizes to fansites and third-party contributors in EVE Communication Center

    CCP Guard wrote:
    ShadowandLight wrote:
    Here's the million dollar question

    what else has CCP secretly given out to pilots, communities, player run organizations?

    Secretly...nothing. And what we've given out as rewards or prizes doesn't generally come in big bundles which is one of the key reasons eyebrows were raised over this incident.

    It's worth keeping in mind that Internal Affairs has complete oversight over every single item spawned or transferred on our server and monitors all staff account activity closely as is their purpose.

    I think a problem with IA is that while they may work to make sure that individual developers (and I guess GMs) don't do anything for their personal benefit, they aren't a counter to CCP itself enriching/favoring one set of players over another.

    You would think that maybe the CSM could assist with this, but the CSM seems to only be called in after the screw-up is in effect. (and even then, some CSM members are just shills)

  • CCP directly and secretly gifted SOMER Blink 30 Ishukone Scorpions (~450 billion ISK value) in EVE Communication Center

    Curious as to why CCP has been avoiding this thread. This is Monday, and there have been some limited responses elsewhere, but not in their own forums, talking to their own players.

  • CCP directly and secretly gifted SOMER Blink 30 Ishukone Scorpions (~450 billion ISK value) in EVE Communication Center

    Lately, CCP has done one stupid thing after another. They don't seem to realize that the things they do outside game development hurt them.

    This seems like some sort of opposite response to the charging of a fee to people who write Eve related software that they tried a year or so ago. What they don't seem to realize is that the playerbase really doesn't want a special set of snowflakes.

  • The Launcher Still Sucks in EVE Communication Center

    Tiber Ibis wrote:

    The big difference is you only have to open one launcher to launch all the clients. Also the launcher is faster than the client for me, it loads up pretty much instantly.

    I guess I have the opposite experience, the launcher is slower for me. Also, having the launcher open isn't really much of an advantage. It just consumes real estate on the taskbar. Also, double clicking on the exe file (always visible, since I run all clients in windowed mode is quite quick).

    Anyway, did I miss a post where CCP said they were going to re-engineer this awful interface?

  • The Launcher Still Sucks in EVE Communication Center

    Tiber Ibis wrote:
    [quote=Karak Terrel]
    You miss quoted me there. I also said the launcher is much faster for logging in with multiple accounts. So there is the actual argument which you are complaining was missing, and the reason it was missing was because you cut it off and yet complain it is missing at the same time. lol

    I don't get this statement. This launcher is much slower and requires more steps ( mouse clicks ) to launch a new instance than the exe file.

    Exe method
    1. Click on shortcut
    2. Select dropdown list of accounts
    3. Enter password

    New method
    1. Click on launcher window
    2. Click link to switch characters
    3. Select dropdown list of accounts
    4. Enter password
    5. Click launch account

    So, 2 more steps, and the launcher is slower to launch the client to boot.