These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 2011-06-15 14:56
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-12-17 17:05
  • Likes Received: 26

Crynsos Cealion

Security Status 2.4
  • SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Member since
  • Triumvirate. Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [AEGIS] Missile Hitpoints in EVE Technology and Research Center

    As a small cosmetic improvement, it would be nice to display the new missile resistances in the same way as already done with ship resists in their show info window for more compactness.

  • IGB POS Planner 0.65 (2016.05.08) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Qalten wrote:

    Crynsos Cealion wrote:
    Don't forget to add some proper pricing information (especially for faction mods which are all at 0 atm)

    This is something I've been sort of grappling with. When I first started the Planner, I was using the base material prices that CCP provided way back when for the structures. Now, things are much more fluid as the modules are produced by players, and prices can vary (somewhat) especially with the faction modules. Without me manually inputting the prices every so often to help compensate, I wonder if it's even worth representing the values of modules at all since I really can't offer a valid price quote. Maybe there's a way I can link to another site that does; I'm open to suggestions on that front.


    Eve-Central usually provides automatic price updates for a variety of tools, such as EFT and could be probably used here as well if you know how to do so. May even be possible to do it directly via the CREST API now, as I heard the market data is already available via that.

    As a simpler variation, you could link to the Eve-Central pages for the individual items.

  • IGB POS Planner 0.65 (2016.05.08) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Great to see this tool getting some updates again, I like it and use it a lot, despite it being oudated for as long as I've known it.

    Don't forget to add some proper pricing information (especially for faction mods which are all at 0 atm) and to change the Moon Harvester from <0.4 to <0.5
    Might also be a good idea to make the core tower a clearly visible flexible option, so that anyone can move whole setups made for one tower type to a different one and then just adjust it according to the fitting limits.

  • EVE 13.04 Features Now On Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The Sansha Control Towers are actually Gallente Towers with the Sansha skin applied at the moment, looks quite interesting but I doubt it's meant like that unless Sansha started collaborating with Serpentis lately...

    Blaster Batteries look a bit too bright cyan, considering the current gallente base color style.
    Also, all small and medium railgun batteries now have the base model of a blaster battery?



    Aside from these little flaws, especially the revised POS structures look pretty great, loving all the tiny moving bits around the arrays, makes it look much more alive (assembly arrays especially).

    The fact that you already implemented the "offline mode" for structures (only seen it on towers) already looks quite nice and those are some pretty awesome new POS bubbles, truly makes you think of magnetic shielding... and THOSE ANGEL / DOMINATION TOWERS!
    Need the Machariel to look like that again... please, please make it happen...

  • Super Kerr-Induced Nanocoatings (SKINs) Feedback thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    A preview mode for the skins would be great, like just make the skins themselves clickable just like current ships are in the market and when you show info on them, except of course, with the according skin applied to the ship in question.

    Also, is there a plan to make hull variations (navy issue, T2) compatible to a skin bought for the base model ship? (and vice versa, like for the exhumer skins?)

  • [April 2015] IHub and Upgrade volumes and manufacturing in EVE Technology and Research Center

    To complement these changes regarding Deep Space Transports and other Fleet Hangar using ships, it would be also very useful to be able to scoop structures into fleet hangars, either primarily over default cargo space, by a new choice menu into which cargo to scoop objects (rather not this option) or by automatically scooping into the Fleet Hangar once the main cargo bay is full.

    Deploying a Starbase or thelike would be easier via being able to deploy via Fleet Hangars, but disassembly of structures (especially POSes) would remain a pain if you don't add this complementary change.

  • [Scylla] Ishtars in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Perhaps the real fixing of Ishtars needs to be something more drastic, like changing their role entirely.

    The previous fix was something you could feel in both PvE and PvP, but obviously not enough to balance out the many advantages of sentries with enough drawbacks to make them not quite as powerful.


    The main issue lies probably not with the damage Ishtars are able to deal, but with their ability to apply too much of said damage at far too long ranges with far too much precision, while being almost entirely able to decide damage type, being largely EWAR immune and having the unique ability among T2/T3s to project damage from a position without actually having to be at said position.

    Short of a remote ECM Burst-like EWAR type to have a chance based ability to randomly disconnect drones (and keep them disconnected for a while), not much will change that.


    So how about cutting the most problematic bonus completely out of the Ishtar, the sentry range and tracking bonus?

    Ishtars can be still plenty powerful via using heavy drones, though in this case the damage is generally harder to apply, delayed and easier to kill off than in the case of sentries. They would still have a lot of DPS for a HAC out to a good range, but this type of damage application is much more limited and has a good amount of drawbacks, while being more faithful to the "Drones everywhere" instead of "Drones turned turrets everywhere" way the Ishtar should be.

    It might also make heavy drones much more viable to fly with in general, just like how the Gila increased the usefulness of Medium Drones massively.


    Ishtars are usually used as kiting ships, but are actually the slowest among the HACs, so maybe give them a speed bonus to compensate for the lost drone bonus? Active repping would be also a possibility, but seeing as there is already the Deimos, this may not be such a good idea. A turret bonus probably wouldn't make much sense either, though it is a possibility.

  • Away with empty Highslots - Introduce Heat Sinks in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Since a long time, empty highslots or offlined modules between your weapons have been called heat sinks, although that was always more of a workaround of the heat mechanics than anything else.

    Personally I've been always a person who hates to see empty slots on ships, but I see their purpose, especially in high slots.
    Low slots have other options for when you ran out of fitting the best possible primary priority mods to your ship, like Co-Processors, RCUs, PDS, passive armor mods, nanos, etc; although mid- and especially highslots have been lacking this for a long time.
    The only real option to fill those up with something senseful nowadays when your fitting resources ran out is maybe an Automatic Targeting System I or trying to squeeze a small Neut or Nos in there somehow, as sadly the prototype highslot target painters never actually got released to fill this niche.


    What about introducing proper heat sinks for highslots, possibly even mid and low slots, so that you can focus on fitting the best possible modules on your ships, without having to worry too much about having spare fitting left for that empty slot?
    That empty slot could be still filled up with a useful mod that will do nothing by itself, but boosts the capabilities of the other fitted slots, by reducing their heat absorption in the same way that the (currently heavily underused) Supplemental Coolant Injector T3 Subsystems do.

    This could be even tied into current lore, with the recent sleeper emergence in known space somehow adding this in as a possible loot BPC item similar to the other recent exploration-only items available in various meta variants.

    As heat sinks are usually very simple objects (although improved by possible sleeper tech to be more efficient), they could be possibly even just one single item that is compatible with all 3 fitting slot types (no idea if that is even possible without heavily changing fitting mechanics) to widen their use and make them a very flexible item and cheap enough to make it worth to find a place everywhere, even on basic T1 frigates.

    To expand their usefulness among ship types that may overheat a lot (think carriers that burn modules till the breaking point, then refit new ones), adding in some increased structure HP might also be a good idea, so that these heat sinks will be very hard to break (but not impossible like siege / triage modules) via overheating.


    So, TL;DR:

    Limited Supplemental Cooling Radiator
    25% Reduction in the amount of heat damage absorbed by other modules in the same rack
    Structure Hitpoints: 50 HP
    0 TF / 1 PWG

    Experimental Supplemental Cooling Radiator
    33% Reduction in the amount of heat damage absorbed by other modules in the same rack
    Structure Hitpoints: 60 HP
    0 TF / 1 PWG

    Prototype Supplemental Cooling Radiator
    50% Reduction in the amount of heat damage absorbed by other modules in the same rack
    Structure Hitpoints: 70 HP
    0 TF / 1 PWG


    OR if you want them to become much more widespread like I imagined how they would be most useful where they are really needed... (stuff like frigate 1v1, small scale primarily)

    T1: Supplemental Cooling Radiator I
    25% Reduction in the amount of heat damage absorbed by other modules in the same rack
    Structure Hitpoints: 50 HP
    0 TF / 1 PWG

    Meta: Experimental Supplemental Cooling Radiator
    33% Reduction in the amount of heat damage absorbed by other modules in the same rack
    Structure Hitpoints: 60 HP
    0 TF / 1 PWG

    T2: Supplemental Cooling Radiator II
    50% Reduction in the amount of heat damage absorbed by other modules in the same rack
    Structure Hitpoints: 70 HP
    0 TF / 1 PWG

    Sleeper Faction!? Sleeper Supplemental Cooling Radiator
    66% Reduction in the amount of heat damage absorbed by other modules in the same rack
    Structure Hitpoints: 80 HP
    0 TF / 1 PWG


    Of course you could also add a small penalty to them to compensate the increased advantage they would give, though I couldn't think of a particulary good one that would make them worthwhile using, but not hurting the ship too much. It couldn't be a penalty to fitting as that would be the primary reason why they would be used in the first place and many other penalties make little sense as it is a passive module, just like a little bit of extra armor.

    Perhaps a slight velocity penalty could be realistic and viable, although I will leave that part of thinking to the devs who may choose to implement this.

    Thanks for reading and please give me feedback!

  • We want your corp little things! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Corporation Standings

    Kinda annoying for diplos when you change a standing (or add or remove) and then it has a good chance of just reverting that change a couple minutes later...

  • [Phoebe] Stealth Bombers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    In case this hasn't been posted here yet, a good idea from reddit to hurt ISBoxer bombers the same way as originally intended:

    How about having a pop up window come up after launching a bomb, asking you to enter a randomized 4 number code within 10 seconds so that the bomb gets armed, otherwise it would not explode?
    That would be easy for any normal human player to do (and distracted them a little from escaping while we're at it), but quite hard for ISBoxers without some scripts, which would be classified as botting anyways.

  • UI Modernization preview - Feedback and issues in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Repost from Reddit:
    http://i.imgur.com/K8Sp6zH.png

    How about changing the overview ship size brackets to ISIS ship size icons while we're at this?

  • Dev Blog - A new look for EVE’s UI – feedback needed! in EVE Information Center

    While I kinda mourn the old icons already, the idea and pictures so far are good, although a wide color selection range seems very necessary. I vote for dark purple!

  • New Notifications - official feedback thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Two things that would be nice for the notifications:

    1. Make it possible to interact with notifications more, like how the "Contact logged in" Portrait currently gives you the ability to right click it and interact with the person instantly - like if you want to re-invite a DC'd person to a fleet or want to open a chat with someone who just logged in via right clicking - this was fine and possible so far, not anymore with the new notifications.


    2. Let us choose which notifications actually add to the counter of unread notifications.
    I don't care much about a "You have received a new Reaper and one Unit of Trit" notification and I may not care about everyone who logged in either (If I want to see details, I can always look up the notification history), but I certainly want to know how many important notifications were actually missed, like attack/reinforcement notifications or POS fuel warnings.

    Maybe even create two types of priorities for unseen notifications, a green number for "trivial" things and a red number for critical warnings, both freely chooseable but with a senseful preset?

  • Oceanus Feedback Thread in EVE Information Center

    Spugg Galdon wrote:
    T1 Modules are still completely out classed by meta modules

    New meta module naming system is immature and childish. It looses all of it's SciFi depth.


    I think the most simple and senseful way to make them useful would be to give the basic and currently buildable meta 0 modules the role of the "Compact" modules, the modules that are easier to fit than all others of the same time at the cost of performance.

    Seeing as the renaming has been probably primarily done to help rookies recognize that even modules with long and complex names are essentially just the same as a "Co-Processor/Reactor Control Unit/etc I" but slightly better, this would give our newbies a good module to start out with in terms of recognizing what it does by name, as well as being very cheap and compensates for their lack of fitting skills.


    And I have to heavily agree, removing all the unique, if sometimes overly complex names of modules reduces a lot of the Sci-Fi flair, which started as the good old ArcJet Thrusters and thelike were removed, later the unique missile names and now the whole rest of the modules stock - but it hasn't really improved and only made many vets more annoyed about it every time it was done.

  • Dev blog: Rebalancing EVE, One Module At A Time in EVE Information Center

    Quote:

    1st. T1 modules need to retain usefulness over meta modules in some way.


    I think the most simple and senseful way to make them useful would be to give the basic and currently buildable meta 0 modules the role of the "Compact" modules, the modules that are easier to fit than all others of the same time at the cost of performance.

    Seeing as the renaming has been probably primarily done to help rookies recognize that even modules with long and complex names are essentially just the same as a "Co-Processor/Reactor Control Unit/etc I" but slightly better, this would give our newbies a good module to start out with in terms of recognizing what it does by name, as well as being very cheap and compensates for their lack of fitting skills.


    And I have to heavily agree, removing all the unique, if sometimes overly complex names of modules reduces a lot of the Sci-Fi flair, which started as the good old ArcJet Thrusters and thelike were removed, later the unique missile names and now the whole rest of the modules stock - but it hasn't really improved and only made many vets more annoyed about it every time it was done.

  • EVE Probe Installer 0.82.6614.0 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ain't running here yet, tells me all the time that its losing focus and that it can't be ran that way.
    Turning off FRAPS didn't help, though its not that surprising, with tons of other applications running and a dual monitor setup.

  • Feedback request on Contract system in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Currently Cap Boosters (and their navy versions) are one of the only charges that cannot be contracted without having to be removed from the fitting prior to finishing the contract.

    So it would be useful to classify them just like normal ammo and scripts, which can stay fitted just fine across contracts.

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

    Suggestion: Add fitted Cap Boosters as valid "charge" in contracts
    Keywords: UI, Contracts, Fitting
    Note: Currently Cap Boosters (and their navy versions) are one of the only charges that cannot be contracted without having to be removed from the fitting prior to finishing the contract, while thelike of ammo and scrips stay fitted just fine across contracts.

  • Singularity: Requests for account reactivation in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Reactivation please, thanks.

  • Naming Jump Clones in EVE Technology and Research Center

    +1

    Would make finding the right clone out of the 10 different ones quite a bit more comfy.