These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2010-06-19 13:37
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 17:56
  • Likes Received: 0

Basil Vulpine

Security Status 5.0
  • Blueprint Haus Member since
  • Blades of Grass Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Service Module : Scotties Office in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    The tether range is large enough for anything to slowboat away a bit then turn around if your next warp point is across the structure model. No need for a change on that. Pilot your ship and it will all work.


    Fleets bouncing off of structures during aligns is a minor point which is why I suggested the fuel discount applies to non-citadels. The overall suggestion should've been clear that this is a QoL time saving feature rather than making things easier.

  • Service Module : Scotties Office in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Alderson Point wrote:

    Can you not stop the ship whilst in tether range? And then your base align speed is available? Or use an instaundock? Or orbit the structure staying in tether until you are out of the line of a bubble or camper? And you can look outside before undocking, so there should be no surprises.

    I am not sure what your suggestion cures?


    It's a quality of Life thing. With multiple specialised structures comes a common desire to move stuff between them, in bulk. Neither industrials nor freighters are what you'd consider agile. At the moment you can either
    - put all of your structures in a straight line so you can instawarp between them or
    - spread them out a bit to look more like an industrial hub but live with slow warps between structures.

    Currently the easy fix is to asset safety things from the refinery to the construction facility and just wait for it to arrive, it just needs some advance planning. While incredibly handy, and with a slight risk in case you forget to reclaim the stuff, it doesn't feel satisfying to use an NPC mechanic to teleport stuff between structures. Having everything in a straight line works but is pretty dull.

    The main aim of the suggestion is to allow things to be spread out more rather than all in one straight line. Bubbles and campers wouldn't really be changed - currently if they are on the right grid when you undock they catch you, otherwise you are instantly in warp to elsewhere. The same would be true afterwards. Anybody who warps without checking for hazards can still become a KM which is as it should be.

  • Service Module : Scotties Office in EVE Technology and Research Center

    So we've had a chance to play a bit with structure in space. They are nice and there's some decent variety needed if you want to min/max things. If you want to build a little city there's one big problem: Instawarps are too damn useful, especially since ships still come out of the new structures too fast and so take ages to align in any other direction. Given the safety that tethering provides after docking I don't think it's imbalanced to speed up the warp.

    What benefit does it allow? Well for starters if I'm building a small cluster of refinery + ECs I don't have to put them all in a single straight line. I can make a nice compact cluster in 3 dimensions and not hear cursing every time somebody undocks a freighter. It also means that FCs can undock a fleet and not have to worry about it bumping off of the structure when he calls an align prior to warping off, he can just warp off instead. Yes it's an advantage for the defender but it's an advantage that requires them to undock. It's an advantage that gets them in to a fight faster without actually influencing the fight itself. This can be reasonably cheap to run as I see it as a QoL improvement with limited impact.


    In my simplistic view implementation could consist of:
    Stats wise probably pitch it similar to a reprocessing facility but with a running cost discount for refineries and ECs.
    For everybody that undocks the ship starts off at 75% of maximum speed. If they then issue a warp or bridge command while tethered the structure applies a non-aggressing 90% web which doesn't break tether. If it was an aggressing web it would probably want some kind of exemption option.

    If it looks overpowered then it could be limited to only providing the instawarp webs between structures that have it installed. This however is likely trickier than it appears since I expect most people are warping to BMs near the undock rather than to the tether edge that a "warp to structure" leaves you at.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    I see in the devblog that you will be uninstalling all of the reprocessing rigs so that people have the option of reinstalling them. This is a good move! However since you are giving an inch I'm going to ask for a mile Smile

    Can you please uninstall all rigs on a structure that has a reprocessing rig on it? Chances are that the entire structure will be replaced by a refinery and it would be nice to be able to just reuse all of the rigs once we're done placing the new refinery. The old structure will in many cases be surplus to requirements at this point and be unanchored.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    mkint wrote:
    Rena'Thras wrote:
    I'll ask the same for this that I've asked all along with all the Upwell Structures:

    WHEN WILL THERE BE A SMALL SIZE?

    .

    It was mentioned earlier by some people, but this means people that run small POSes now or smaller Corporations or industrial players now have to join a big Corp or Alliance in order to do this stuff. Right now, you can drop a small POS in Lowsec as an individual or small Corporation and work into the moon mining game, as well as dropping a small POS in Highsec if you want your own personal refining station.

    After this change, you're going from a 150M investment into a several billion ISK facility, something like a 10-100x increase in cost for people, yeah?

    I've always liked the idea of smaller groups being able to do things, and I love personal deployable structures, so I feel like there should be SMALL structures added to the Upwell lines. The fact that this is going to essentially phase out SMALL POSes, yet there is no SMALL version, I find very strange and not really defensible as a position unless the goal of EVE is to tell small groups or individual players that they aren't welcome in it.

    Surely that isn't the intention...?

    One can make the argument for Citadels not having a small size due to their nature. Engineering complexes the argument isn't as good, but it might still hold some water. But as we get more and more structures and get closer and closer to removing POSes from the game, CCP, you guys really need to look at throwing a bone to small corps and players that need smaller, cheaper, and more manageable facilities for their needs.

    CCP has made it crystal clear that small groups are no longer welcome in EVE. If that bothers you, you are welcome to unsub. EVE has become a marketing driven game, and if you don't N+1, you don't contribute to their marketing and are thus disposable.


    Small structures have always been listed as personal items rather than corp. They exist, they are called mobile depot and other such things. Mediums are pretty affordable even for individuals in a personal corp, they just aren't hugely defendable if somebody decides to attack them. Then again neither are larges unless you have a fleet to back you up.

  • [March] Mining Drone Specialization skill and T2 Mining Drones in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mr Bowers wrote:

    Great Idea! But they need to allow the blue prints to be in LP store. Not done by only drops. The mining drones cost way to much as CCP has done a big push on mining drones. Not every one in eve is rich or can lose them in 0.0. Hopeul ccp will find away to reduce the costs of all mining drones. The biggest one cost 1.7b each? No reason for it! They should cost no more then a hulk fit around 300m each. Rorquals are dying like crazy and can be replaced not the 5b in drones. Which is crazy.


    The cost of the excavator drones is mostly in the parts rather than the BPC. Each drone last I looked was around 80m for the BPC cost. The rest was mostly the rogue drone parts, especially the AIs and the capillaries. Due to their relatively limited supply they are very vulnerable to market manipulation to make a bad situation even worse.

  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The fact that things are so split suggests things are broadly speaking fine.

    Nullification should have a heavy impact on combat use, it mostly already does. Bubbles are one of the big things that set apart null / WH space and force commitment to fights.

    Hauling is in a good place for bubbles, cloaking and nullification. If you are moving stuff you should take care or lose it. A scout and a BR gives you safety at an acceptable cost. A nullified / instawarp style pod taxi is a huge QoL thing but shouldn't have huge cargo, shuttle size cargo. Not able to warp cloaked is probably wise to avoid excessive use as a scout.

    Anchor bubbles seem the biggest issue but don't want a nerf in to oblivion. I think making NPCs shoot them if they are in their effect is a sensible step, it needs to be done for the mining fleets anyway. May as well add killmails too, that way if somebody routinely hell bubbles gates you can see that by kb analysis.

    The big gripe about seas of bubbles is a problem of accumulation and no maintenance.

    There are plenty of gimmick options but I don't think Eve needs more of those. If something can be fixed by making almost universal things universal or making it more common sense that should be the route to take.

  • [December] Defender Missiles in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
    What if: Bombs detonated when destroyed?

    That would reduce the need of multi-waved bomb run, would allow to mix various bomb types and other fun opportunities: get in front of fleet at 10-15 km, fire them bombs at fleet and LET defenders destroy their own fleet.


    That'll be a bit harsh on the bombers that haven't warped out in the 3 second travel time of the defender missile.

  • Open letter to Mr. Pétursson / ピエトルソン氏への公開状 in 日本語フォーラム

    I'd miss our Japanese friends if they weren't around.

    Localisation seems to be a knotty problem. CCP as a company isn't large enough to employ a native speaker of every language as a "CCP Falcon Jr, GM, Translator and prime-time help channel moderator".

    With the current ease of patching maybe it's time for CCP to crowdsource a chunk of translation? Do a first publish using the current process, solicit alternatives submitted to an open section. Then involve a couple of respected community members (corp CEOs or their nominated person?) to pick a favourite and use that in place of the first cut version.

    The process needs to be good enough to weed out the google translates and boaty mcboatfaces but loose enough that it doesn't get mired in a preference over turn of phrase. If several are good enough then hash their words, use each hash as a random seed for an AI fight of rifters at the sun.

  • Dev blog: Command Bursts and the New World of Fleet Boosting in EVE Information Center

    I've not read through the entire thread but I see there was a recent question about BPOs so I assume it wasn't covered yet.

    We know that the high slot command modules remain high slots and just have their BPOs changed across. That's nice and easy.

    Command Processors are currently a medium slot item. They become a rig. I assume that means all 4 sizes will exist. What is happening with these BPOs? Do they get split in to 4, each with the same ME / TE as the original? What about BPCs? Also assuming you split them up please consider what will happen if they are currently in cans near the item limit.

  • Dev blog: Clone States - Post CSM Summit Roundup in EVE Information Center

    Disallowing Alpha clones from fuelling starbases is a good move but I have to ask how it is being achieved.

    Preventing them from having relevant roles is not going to work as you can set POS fuelling permissions to be open to corp or even alliance. I know this is a headache for CCP but I needs flagging up sooner rather than later.

  • [November] Rorqual Changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Some suggestions to throw in to the pot here if CCP is able to be creative with their code

    Rorqual, PANIC and Cynos.
    Problem:
    A mining Rorq under attack being able to light a cyno is good, a PvP rorq being able to light a cyno and be invulnerable is bad.

    Suggestion:
    If a Rorqual has a jump reactivation timer (or any fatigue if you want to be cruel) then it can't activate the PANIC module. Now for the Rorqual to be an invulnerable bridgehead through which you can bring your other caps in you need to either defend it after jumping in to the initial cyno or slowboat it in with your spearhead. Though you could still bring it in to system in advance and log it off I guess.


    PANIC button and TSM 5
    Problem:
    TSM 5 as a pre-req is contentious

    Solution:
    Make Mining Upgrades 5 a pre-req.

    As best as I can read from the comments a lot of people are up in arms about a relatively minor but provable disadvantage from training TSM to 5 instead of leaving it at 4. Since the scale of the problem is relatively minor these people are either devout min/maxers or strictly following what they've been told.

    While TSM is an obvious choice of pre-req for something that makes a huge change to a shield stat in theory it could be any skill. I suggest Mining Upgrades to 5. Lore wise PANIC is unique and is some weird edge case effect that can be caused by mining augmentation feeding back in to shields. Game balance wise this takes a skill that many miners stopped training at 4 because "you'll never need mining upgrades to 5" and makes them train that to 5 instead. On a skill map that is going to be worse for most people than Int/Mem would be.
    As an added bonus it's going to encourage people to speed in to a Rorqual and forget their shield skills. Everybody gets to benefit, not just the miners!

  • [November] Rorqual Changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Two things,

    First a consistency question.
    Going from T1 Siege -> T2 siege in a dread is the same amount of base stront usage despite the module having better effects.
    Going from T1 Triage -> T2 Triage in a fax is actually a reduction in base stront usage despite the module having better effects.

    For the industrial core going from T1 -> T2 is a 50% increase in activation cost? I get that there's some differences in usage pattern since in theory if you are sieging a Rorq you are going to be sieging it for a long time unlike combat capitals but that still seems a pretty hefty increase.

    Second (and most definitely not least!):
    Absolutely, positively, 100% necessary - having an entosis link active needs prevent benefiting from the PANIC module.

  • Dev blog: Mining Foreman Revolution in EVE Information Center

    This isn't quite the right thread for this I suspect, please move it if needed.

    All of the new command burst ammo requirements use Heavy Water.

    Everybody I've spoken to already has a shortage of HW and an abundance of LO, a situation that has been true for years. Even before Phoebe I accumulated 16m units of excess LO in Delve and we had a fair few JBs seeing use then. This is going to be accentuated even further by increasing the HW consumption on the Industrial cores.

    Has somebody done a proper analysis of production vs consumption of LO and HW and whether there are stockpiles generally accumulating? I suggest that using LO for the command burst ammo may be a better choice.

  • For CCP in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I think it could do with so much more. It's obviously time to introduce psychics to this game, CCP has laid all of the groundwork.

    Just add a Portal BPC that drops from Null-Sec incursions. When you build it one character can activate it and "transcend". Just think of the massive PvP you'd get when the gate is close to activating and everybody wants to be the chosen one who gets to use it! We don't want these too common so we can balance them by cost. Keepstars don't seem too common yet so 300-400b seems a decent figure.

    After that they just pay a mere plex per day to maintain that transcended status and be able to project WH effects of their choice across the entire grid they are present in. It probably needs to double shield/armor/hull HP and give a flat 90% omni tank since it'll be an obvious target. For balance purposes it'll need to be clearly visible, maybe have some nice ethereal wings attached to the ship. Something unique and unmistakable, not only does it help keep it balanced but of course it also acts as a nice boost to epeen.

    And in before TEST suggests it, we could do a similar thing but instead of the grid it warps local chat. The proud owner of the effect can create a pool of names which then get randomly substituted on to every conversation in local. At 2 plex / day you even start influencing hostile fleet chats. How cool would that be!

    Alternatively I'd say OP needs to check his hat, the tinfoil seems to have developed some holes and alien signals are starting to leak in.

  • Blueprint Haus, a Family Friendly Sov Holding Corp, is Recruiting in EVE Corporations, Alliances and Organizations Center

    As CEO I'm probably biased but I'm proud of this corporation and the alliance we are in.

    BlueP had the second most people in fleet for our alliance last night covering the coalition Keepstar critical vulnerable period. The alliance wasn't too shabby either at fourth spot with the alliances ahead of us 3 times our size or more!

    We've got a good bunch of people in EU and NA timezones but it's always nice to have a few more on comms during quiet periods when we are just relaxing in our home space in Branch. If things look like they'll stay quiet then we'll have a wider variety of corp op options with a larger group of people. The important part though is that everybody fits in welll, Kerp did a good job with the initial post of this thread.

  • Suggestion re: Industrial platforms and Supercap builds in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I'm sure I'm not the only one starting a thread on this general subject but here goes.

    The leap from building supercaps in a POS with an obvious target module to only building them in a XL Industrial facility is likely to be pretty major. I'd like to see supercaps buildable in a Large Industrial facility BUT...

    Make them visible while in build in a gantry arrangement outside the station. Have several versions of the build graphics for each super that let you identify not just what is in build but roughly how long is left before completion.

    This is consistent in many ways with allowing supercaps to tether to Large structures. I'm ignoring the tethering to mediums part here for some semblance of balance.

    I see this as having several advantages:
    - Builders get to see the ships in build in various stages. That sounds pretty awesome to me.
    - There's still an obvious target value associated with building things "on the cheap". It also fixes the old "only parts" claim.
    - The XL Industrial facility still retains its position as the place to do mass or paranoid builds.

    Yes, this is a heavy load on the art team, they'd need to do a few "in build" designs for each supercap type and imagine how they'd look like in build but I'm sure they'd love that and maybe even manage to come up with a distinctive build style per faction.

    Yes, you would probably want to limit how many supercaps can be in build at any one time so that the Large structure doesn't disappear behind a wall of scaffolding.

    Yes, you'd probably update the in build graphics during downtime so they'd be a bit jarring as they go from one to another if you are watching.

    But most importantly, Yes this gives players some choices of risk vs reward as well as leaving supercapital builds more or less as accessible as they are currently.

  • [Citadel] Updates to NPC taxes and refining rig bonuses in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rob Kaichin wrote:
    So that's...a comparative nerf to LS refining? (I recall the current numbers being higher)

    More importantly, I'd really like to restate my question from the thread: Have you considered all the outcomes (lowered trade volume, increased prices, higher prices for noobs) and do you think that those are positive outcomes?

    There's obviously a lot of backdraft from people who think this is a terrible idea, but I'd like to ask for an in-depth explanation of what you envision happening with these tax increases, please.



    Low Sec should be using the intensive reprocessing array? That's a 54% refine.
    NPC stations are all 50% at best as far as I'm aware.

    I don't know if FW causes any adjustments but overall I suspect this is a buff to low-sec refining.

  • EVE-O preview - multi-client preview / switcher - v1.18.3 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lucas Kell wrote:
    Basil Vulpine wrote:
    User/Appdata/Local did indeed have an _ folder with subfolders that were all eve-o preview related. user.cfg was the only file in there. Nuking that hasn't restored XML file creation but did seem to help re-default things.

    Renaming the executable redefaults things. Renaming the folder redefaults things.

    Neither restores XML files going in to the same folder as the executable.


    If it really has put them somewhere random then surely it needs to find them somehow? If I try and use windows search for recently modified XML files Cortana pops up wanting more permissions. It sounds like it may be time to go find a third party search/file indexing tool.
    You could try checking over your xml files to make sure they aren't missing anything. Copy paste each of them into a site like this one, which will validate the XML and make sure It's not badly formatted. It might be that it's failing to load them and giving up.


    I wiped the ones I edited and a search for files modified today didn't turn up any relevant .xml files on the hard disk. The Eve-o preview folder literally only contains the EXE currently. I did try putting in some data-less XML files too that just had the header and no characters, no joy.

  • EVE-O preview - multi-client preview / switcher - v1.18.3 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lucas Kell wrote:
    Does it not still store the xml in a random appdata folder sometimes? I know it used to have an issue where sometimes it would create a random apddata folder with a bunch of xml files and you had to change the location of the exe file itself to get it to use local xml files again, so failing other things, try copying the exe file and the xml files you've got for it to a new folder and running it from there. I think it's something that happens when you're using some of environment path variables in .NET, or possibly if you're not specifying a root path and just aiming for a file directly.


    User/Appdata/Local did indeed have an _ folder with subfolders that were all eve-o preview related. user.cfg was the only file in there. Nuking that hasn't restored XML file creation but did seem to help re-default things.

    Renaming the executable redefaults things. Renaming the folder redefaults things.

    Neither restores XML files going in to the same folder as the executable.


    If it really has put them somewhere random then surely it needs to find them somehow? If I try and use windows search for recently modified XML files Cortana pops up wanting more permissions. It sounds like it may be time to go find a third party search/file indexing tool.


    Makari Aeron wrote:
    Honestly? I don't know. I have never had it do that to me. Then again, I'm not the original author. I merely adopted it when he stepped away.

    @Basil Vulpine: I'd recommend doing what Lucas Kell said, move the EXE to a new folder or rename it the folder it is in.

    Thanks for reading and responding. If I can fix what I broke then this looks like it'll be very handy.