These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 2012-01-17 21:56
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-08-14 11:26
  • Likes Received: 0

Drosal Inkunen

Security Status 0.4
  • Schwarzs-Children Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • New Burner Missions on Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Seamus Donohue wrote:
    By the way, after completing the Serpentis Burner mission for the agent in Frarn, any further attempt to ask for a mission results in the agent text "I'm sorry, but what I've got is promised to another pilot already. Could you come back later?" Is this expected for Singularity?

    Drosal Inkunen wrote:
    Are they going to make it so you can't just warp into it with a pod, grab bookmarks near the cruisers, and then warp directly on top of them? While it got the mission done, it made me feel incredibly dirty.

    Why? Warping in on a target at zero to ambush it is a time-honored PvP tradition, I thought? :P


    Oh, perfectly OK with them allowing you to do it with two sihps, I'm talking about using a pod, which the NPCs won't attack, and then bookmarking the location.

  • New Burner Missions on Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Are they going to make it so you can't just warp into it with a pod, grab bookmarks near the cruisers, and then warp directly on top of them? While it got the mission done, it made me feel incredibly dirty.

  • Dev blog: Hacking in Odyssey in EVE Information Center

    Aminam Proweco wrote:
    When can we see this on SISI ? Big smile

    Last I heard it is currently on SiSi, just not on most sites.

  • SINGULARITY ERROR in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I am also having this issue on multiple ISPs.

  • Capital Rigs and Orcas in EVE Gameplay Center

    Somewhere in the thread CCP said that it will still be Large Rigs.
    To find the post, just keep clicking on the blue "CCP" arrow on the character picture on the thread.

  • New blog: Can you help us find the True Stories of The First Decade? in EVE Information Center

    This actually excites me quite a bit. It was stories from eve that ultimately got me playing. The most awesome thing about eve is that there ARE such stories to talk about and that in game events more or less count toward the overall story.

  • Dev blog: Odyssey summer expansion: Starbase iterations in EVE Information Center

    Camios wrote:
    Ahem.
    I'm sorry to break this lovely atmosphere of joy, but

    ShockedREFINING ARRAYS STILL SUCK!Shocked

    Can you please do something about it?
    Or at least explain briefly the rationale behind them sucking so hard.
    In my opinion losing 30% or so of what you mined does not make any sense.


    I also have to wonder why they aren't doing anything about this, at least not yet. Doing something about this would be wonderful for wormhole dwellers, especially.

  • When will Logistics pilots get on Kill Mails? in EVE Communication Center

    Arronicus wrote:
    Ra'Shyne Viper wrote:
    What does this actually improve if implemented?



    Killmails are a big source of enjoyment for many pvpers, and a way to track accomplishments. Some short sided players will claim that killmails don't matter to them, and they don't mind if they are on them or not when they are in logi, but they fail to account for how future corporations will potentially view that same player, a year from then. Should they have played logi heavily, attended tons of gangs, been involved in thousands of kills, and had a good pure logi fit doing maximum reppage and tank, if they got on no killmails, they would have a giant blank spot in their kill history, but losses for any logi they used, resulting in a very bad kill:death ratio, that many corps DO care about. Whereas if they actually got on killmails, it shows involvement, it shows participation, and it shows that the logistics player does indeed fly logistics, and is responsible in part for the killmails he was on.

    They may not matter to YOU, but they matter to prospective corps, and how other people view your pvp attendance.


    Also, it would allow corps to look for pilots that are actually good logis. Yeah, that hurts the bad player, but the corps and good logis benefit.

  • Dev blog: The great ship skill change of summer 2013 in EVE Information Center

    Sakari Orisi wrote:
    Myopic Thyne wrote:
    Adding my voice to:

    Command Ship requirements make no sense.
    (Links for 'off-race' and generally neveruse situations.)

    Carrier requirements make no sense.
    (Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and Fighters make more sense then Jump requirements)

    Recons requirements make no sense.
    (Cloaking skill for non-cloaky ships is absurd. How about making carriers require freighter skills.. oh wait THAT would make more sense since they do haul stuff around a lot.)


    I think this is spot on.
    I don't think the passive boost skills should be needed to fly all command ships.

    Ditto for Carriers and Cloaking on recons.
    I appreciate training time should be kept roughly the same as now, but a better set of skills should be searched for.

    Perhaps ...

    Command Ships: Wing command ?
    Recons: No idea there
    Carriers: As above poster mentioned: Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and/or fighters.
    Dreads: the dread requiremetns should mirror the carrier ones. Keep them in line imo.


    Hey, someone notices it is the passive boosts, not the gang link skills!

    Anyway, the passive boosts were probably chosen because they would be the skills needed to train for gang links.
    I am not sure of training times for wing command, but I personally would rather have the boosters all have the passive boosts than not have them. Sure 10% shields won't help too much on an armor ship, but I'd rather have the 10% shields than nothing.

    I will pass on commenting on the carrier changes as that isn't an area I'm familiar with.

    I think cloaking for recons is a tricky one. I believe they mentioned the reasoning is that half the recons really shouldn't be used without a cov-ops cloak and they couldn't really find a skill that worked better. Force Recons almost seem like they should be a different ship type entirely, don't you think?

  • Dev blog: The great ship skill change of summer 2013 in EVE Information Center

    Myopic Thyne wrote:
    Adding my voice to:

    Command Ship requirements make no sense.
    (Links for 'off-race' and generally neveruse situations.)

    Carrier requirements make no sense.
    (Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and Fighters make more sense then Jump requirements)

    Recons requirements make no sense.
    (Cloaking skill for non-cloaky ships is absurd. How about making carriers require freighter skills.. oh wait THAT would make more sense since they do haul stuff around a lot.)

    As has been mentioned, you aren't training the gang link skills to be able to use a command ship, you are training the passive boost skills.

    Now the question is, why do I have to train the passive shield boosts for my armor booster?
    Simple, they needed to replace the logistics/other skills with something, so they went with the passive boosts. It makes sense to me.

  • Dev blog: The great ship skill change of summer 2013 in EVE Information Center

    Radius Prime wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:


    We are considering changing this so you can still train the skill even after the prerequisites are changed, we'll keep you posted as soon we have an answer.
    [/list]


    When will we have answer on that one? It is most important issue in your whole blog.


    It has already been answered. You will still be able to train it.

    #447
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Alrigh folks, good news.

    We'll change the way training works so that you can still train the skills you have after change, even if you don't meet the prerequisite anymore.

    Ex:

    You have Amarr Freighter 1 after the change but not Advanced Spaceship Command 5. You can still fly the Providence and you will now still be able to train Amarr Freighter past 1 as long as you have the skill injected.


    Hope that's clear - trying my very best Sad

  • Dev blog: The great ship skill change of summer 2013 in EVE Information Center

    Kusanagi Kasuga wrote:
    Can we give some free SP to people who read the whole devblog or at least one or two comments before posting?

    The level of RTFDB (read the dev blog) fail in this comment thread is epic.

    I know what you mean. Though, even if they did decide they would actually do this, how would they know who read it first? ;)
    Actually, I think it would be hilarious if they give everyone who evidently read it 1 skill point. XD

  • Dev blog: The great ship skill change of summer 2013 in EVE Information Center

    Haifisch Zahne wrote:
    No, it doesn't come down to not reading the devblog-- but maybe you should with an open mind to problems that might exist for *OTHER* players.

    The problem is that the new nested requirements are not necessarily skills some (obviously other) players HAD.



    Drosal Inkunen wrote:
    Bariolage wrote:
    Most thorough blog post ever. 6 pages of questions in 3 hours.

    A lot of the questions are the same people asking the same thing. It was answered in the dev blog and answered several times in the thread.

    It all comes down to people not knowing how nested requirements work.

    (Also quite a few people not knowing the difference between the "X Warfare" skill and the "X Warfare Specialist" skill.



    I just double checked and none of the ships had the requirements to actually fly them changed, except to be lower and the same skills.

    It affects people who can't fly the ship yet, not those who can fly it now. Most of the changes were to what is required to train the actual skills required to fly the ship.
    These "other" players you accuse me of not having an open mind to can still use their ships. If they can't use the ship, then they now know to either train it quickly or start down the new skill path.



  • Dev blog: The great ship skill change of summer 2013 in EVE Information Center

    Bariolage wrote:
    Most thorough blog post ever. 6 pages of questions in 3 hours.

    A lot of the questions are the same people asking the same thing. It was answered in the dev blog and answered several times in the thread.

    It all comes down to people not knowing how nested requirements work.

    (Also quite a few people not knowing the difference between the "X Warfare" skill and the "X Warfare Specialist" skill.

  • [Retribution 1.1] Black Ops Little Things - now with Covert Cyno update in EVE Technology and Research Center

    RubyPorto wrote:
    Drosal Inkunen wrote:

    A cyno/bridge is a way to counter local being a perfect intel tool before the attack.
    Only one person shows up in local, yet that one person represents everything that is going to be jumped in.


    So you're saying that, if AFK cloaking disappeared, you'd keep ratting if you knew there was a hostile active in your system? Funny, because that's never been my experience when hunting ratters who have half a brain.

    Without AFK Cloaking, Local provides the defenders a complete list of those who are both in system and active.
    Please explain how "a cyno" provides an exception (i.e. counter) to either part of that.


    Of course anyone with half a brain is going to dock up when their is a known hostile active in system. That wasn't what you had originally asked though.

    Local does show a complete list of who is in system. It does not give a list of those who are active with or without afk cloaking.
    If I want to be stupid enough to park my ship on a celestial or in a safe spot I can. Just because I'm in local doesn't mean I'm active.

    How I'm saying a cyno counters the "perfect intelligence" of local is that you only see one ship in local, but within a split second that one ship is suddenly many, many more. The people are not presently in the system, but they are effectively wherever the cyno ship is.

    So, if the cyno ship gets to you, the whole fleet gets to you.

    Local said 1 ship, but that ship represented the fleet. Local gave you a false representation of the force able to be used in your system.

  • [Retribution 1.1] Black Ops Little Things - now with Covert Cyno update in EVE Technology and Research Center

    RubyPorto wrote:
    Kerdrak wrote:
    RubyPorto wrote:

    The AFK cloaker is not at risk because he is not doing anything. Just like you're not at risk when sitting AFK in your station.


    No matter how many times you repeat the same words, it's not going to be true.

    As I said before, you can cloak for days in a system waiting for the perfect opportunity. It's the ability to perform a perfect strike risk free what is unbalanced.


    No matter how many times you try to ignore the most important point, it's not going to disappear.

    Name for me a counter to Local's use as a perfect intel tool (providing both the system population and list of who is active)* that doesn't involve AFK cloaking.

    *By the defenders only, no less, because AFK Stationing or POSing is possible for the defenders to hide their true numbers.

    You can cloak for days doing nothing in a system waiting for something that appears to be the perfect opportunity. It's the ability to perform a not-at-all-surprising attack (Local means the defender get's to know it's coming, just not when) with the very real possibility of falling into a trap (because of the whole "in the middle of hostile space" thing).

    A cyno/bridge is a way to counter local being a perfect intel tool before the attack.
    Only one person shows up in local, yet that one person represents everything that is going to be jumped in.

  • [Retribution 1.1] Black Ops Little Things - now with Covert Cyno update in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kerdrak wrote:
    RubyPorto wrote:

    The AFK cloaker is not at risk because he is not doing anything. Just like you're not at risk when sitting AFK in your station.


    No matter how many times you repeat the same words, it's not going to be true.

    As I said before, you can cloak for days in a system waiting for the perfect opportunity. It's the ability to perform a perfect strike risk free what is unbalanced.

    To expand on what Kerdrak said, the reason the comparison between afk cloaked and afk docked isn't a good one is that when you undock, you show up on d-scan so they know you are now active. When you become active in the cov ops ship, there is nothing indicating this to players in system.

    I am not talking about a ship without a cov-ops cloak and I don't believe Kerdrak is either since he says there is no risk after waiting for the opportunity..

  • [Retribution 1.1] Black Ops Little Things - now with Covert Cyno update in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kerdrak wrote:
    Drosal Inkunen wrote:

    Ok, so clearly the answer is yes.
    I now have to ask why you would be pushing for cap usage while cloaked then?


    The idea is to avoid afk cloakers that stay totally safe for hours and other behaviours, not crippling strategy. So the point is giving it a very low cap consumption, like the damage control, but make cap recharge 0 while cloaked.
    Maybe covert ops cloaks could have a bonus to not stress too much (you know, warping around could be a problem), but the idea of a ship that can be cloaked and immune to other eve players at will always pissed me off.


    Ah, I see what you mean. That I could get behind more. The problem would still be warping. Possibly having the cloak active makes warps cost less or something. It would make things more challenging to fly cov-ops, potentially in a good way.

  • [Retribution 1.1] Black Ops Little Things - now with Covert Cyno update in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kerdrak wrote:
    Drosal Inkunen wrote:
    Kerdrak wrote:

    Would be awesome that cloaked ships couldn't recharge cap while cloaking devices had cap usage.

    *cough* Have you ever flown a covert ops ship?


    I stopped reading here.

    Ok, so clearly the answer is yes.
    I now have to ask why you would be pushing for cap usage while cloaked then?

  • [Retribution 1.1] Black Ops Little Things - now with Covert Cyno update in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kerdrak wrote:

    Would be awesome that cloaked ships couldn't recharge cap while cloaking devices had cap usage.

    *cough* Have you ever flown a covert ops ship? That would make us quite useless. Though, I'll admit it did seem rather weird to me at first that it didn't use anything.

    The problem is that if we lost cap while being cloaked we wouldn't be able to actually set up bombing runs or get into position for an attack very well. Bombers especially are paper thin. Without the cloak we die easily. If people just had to wait 2 minutes for us to decloak bombers would just get slaughtered and not be able to fight back.

    I know your post is about AFK cloaking, but this would be a serious problem to actively playing cov ops ships.