These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 2010-06-28 06:04
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-07 00:17
  • Likes Received: 0


Security Status 0.6
  • Aliastra Member since
  • Gallente Federation Faction

Last 20 Posts

  • Sounding board for structures in w space in EVE Gameplay Center

    I plan on attending.

  • Proteus Release Issues in EVE Information Center

    My Confessor is still broken. Which is a widely known issue from the last release. The mode buttons keep disappearing and makes the boat much less useable. This is in spite of the fact that myself as well as my corpmates have all submitted bug reports.

  • [Rhea] Standard Sleeper Cache, explorers needed! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Can we get another updated list? I want to give a few a try.

  • WTS ISHTAR PILOT in EVE Marketplace

    6.5 b/o

  • WTS ISHTAR PILOT in EVE Marketplace


  • WTS 10.8M SP Focused Dominix Sentry / Heavy Pilots in EVE Marketplace

    Are any of these pilots still available and how close to ishtar would one be?

  • WTB Ishtar Pilot in EVE Marketplace


  • ---WTS Ishtar pilot awsome drone skills 5 b starting bid in EVE Marketplace

    Congratulations to your friend. Let me know if the transaction doesn't work out.

  • ---WTS Ishtar pilot awsome drone skills 5 b starting bid in EVE Marketplace


  • WTB Ishtar Pilot in EVE Marketplace

    Looking for a Pilot who can fly Ishtar with T2 Heavies and some okay shield skills. Hoping to get a character around 6b although I am willing to entertain spending more on a quality toon.

  • [Hyperion Feedback Thread] Mass-Based Spawn Distance After WH Jumps in EVE Gameplay Center

    I originally took interest to this topic when the EVE-O and Reddit posts went up following the discovery on SISI. I decided that there would be no point to attempt to provide feedback until CCP rolled out the DEV Blog and the appropriate thread was started. After reading the DEV Blog and taking a look at the communities response I figured now would be as good of a time as any to weigh in.

    At first glance this seems like it would be a good change. If current rolling behavior remained the same post-patch then it would result in more capital ganks and farmers removed from their carebear dreads and carrier in glorious violence. However, this is unlikely to be the case.

    Farmers by their very nature are risk adverse. They would rather log off than risk handing over any killmails to potential hostiles. So in attempting to increase the risk of capital rolling, in fact this change is decreasing our chances of catching rolling forces closer to zero than it already is, as the targets would opt to log off. As it is, we do have options at our disposal to catch rolling capitals, it just requires some advance preparation.

    I think capital brawls on the wormhole also need to be looked at. This is the bread and butter of high class wormhole life. This is why I as well as many of the other notable entities that live in C5 and C6 space choose to live in a hostile environment. Now dealing with the dynamic of spreading capitals upon spawning on the far side of the Wormhole sounds interesting and I am generally in support of a shakeup. The problem is the new dynamic puts the advantage square on those on the defending side of the wormhole. Currently, it is really quite difficult to take the upper hand in a brawl in another entities home. One method is close proximity Carrier placement to allow combat refitting that extends the survivability of the aggressing capitals. With long range spawns this is no longer viable and in fact a potential of spawning capitals 40km away from each other makes them so much more vulnerable. While the defending force is free to place their capitals in a manor that is completely favorable to a winning outcome. So really it shifts the advantage even more so than it already is to an entrenched Wormhole entity.

    I feel like that the proposed change may become more viable if a more subtle approach was taken. One that doesn't necessarily eliminate some of the major current metas in use in Wormhole space and adds the more dynamic interaction that CCP is looking for out of this change. Personally I would be more in support of this change if the maximum Capital spawn distance is reduced from the current proposal. Really all that is needed is for the capital to spawn just out of jump range. Somewhere on the order of 7.5km would be fine with me. This would be just far enough away that under webs and bumping the capital could be held away from the wormhole until a backup gank force could arrive. It would also give the tackled Capital a short window of time to counter the tackle by giving them a chance to make the Wormhole and jump back. It would be a much more even playing field for both Attacker and Defender. It would also be close enough that the farmers would feel safe enough to attempt rolling possibly even in hostile situations. This would also put the spawns of capitals close enough together that there would actually be a chance of slowboating closer together in the middle of combat. It would still decrease the incidence of triage carriers jumping straight back after exiting a single cycle as they won't be able to move closer to the wormhole while in triage.

    Reading some of the feedback of this thread I have heard a couple times of the proposal that velocity should influence spawn distance on the other side. I would be in support of a change like this. It would increase the viability of kiting fleet in Wormhole space. As it is currently the only meta is Armor Brawling fleets as nearly every fight occurs at zero on the Wormhole. With a change like this a nano fleet could MWD into a Wormhole, jump and spawn at a range that would support kiting. A change like this would add a much needed dynamic to Wormhole space. Much more so than changing the spawn distance that is currently proposed.

    So in the end, this change seems to favor the bigger entities and hurt the little guy even more and decrease the likelihood of engagements with other entities in Wormhole space rather than increase them. Please review this specific change, CCP, and tweak it until it achieves the desired outcome, not move us further away from it. Thanks.

  • [Kronos] Pirate Implants in EVE Technology and Research Center

    As a wormhole resident I enjoy my Virtue implanted scan alt. It would be amazing to see a new option for even better implants for her. Any chance of introducing HG Virtues any time soon?

  • Private Sale in EVE Marketplace

    Transfer complete.

  • [Odyssey 1.1] Heavy Assault Cruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    mynnna wrote:
    Omnathious Deninard wrote:
    mynnna wrote:
    Omnathious Deninard wrote:
    Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU

    The vexor is gun bonused and sort of expected to use them, the ishtar is not. You can fit a 1600mm plate based tank and "basically anything you want" to the vexor already if you don't make much use of the highs, or you can fill your highs with utility modules at the cost of a lighter tank and tighter fitting. It's a fair trade off.

    And what is the reason the navy vexor has the same power grid and +10 CPU over the vexor yet only has 2 unbonused turrets, where as the Ishtar got an extra turret.

    Lol Okay, can't argue with you there.

    I really think that the Ishtar needs some sort of buff to fitting. I fully expected it to get some sort of love in this regard with this balance pass and am disappointed that it has not. I think that the comparison to the Faction Cruiser equivalent is a fair one to make. The Vexor Navy Issue(VNI) and the Ishtar have very similar bonuses to drones. However, it is a toss up and maybe even more of a nod toward using the VNI just because of fitting. I don't believe this should be the case. I feel that the nod towards preference should not be towards the Faction Cruiser but toward the HAC. I think this could be done simply by expanding the fitting to be more in line with the VNI.

    VNI Fittings: 800 PWG, 310 CPU

    Ishtar Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU

    Just under 10% more CPU and well over 10% more PWG is pretty signigicant and I would like to see this addressed or at the very least I hope to hear the reasoning behind making the Ishtar or even some of the other HACs either very similar in power or even having the Faction Cruisers be slightly better than there equivilant HAC.

  • About the Eos' model in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Would love to see the EOS as a Myrmidon Hull on the other hand not too keen on seeing my Sleipnir looking like a Hurricane. Not sure exactly why I feel that way I just do. However if I have to fly a Command ship that looks like the Cane to get a Myrmidon style CS I will take it.

  • Odyssey General Feedback Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Can we please get the camera tracking feature added to the sigs and anoms that show up on the sensor overlay. This would be incredibly useful in PvP applications. To be able to jump into a system, have all the anoms show up on overlay, then click on them in rapid succession to track down ratters would be absolutely amazing.

    Another thought is if the anoms that show up on the Sensor Overlay matched what is in the System Scan window. For example, if I remove and anom I dscanned towards and found no targets, I could ignore it and then it would disapear from space. Would be extremely helpful to help filter through anoms and track down targets even more efficiently and even expanding on that a little bit. How about if we could ignore specific anoms by right clicking on them from the sensor overlay.

    Just a couple random thought that I think could really make this feature pop.

  • Odyssey General Feedback Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lazarus Telraven wrote:
    Mister Vee wrote:
    So I've tested the new probe window, and while the formations are really cool, the functionality is severely lacking.

    - It's now impossible to resize the columns in probe results. Most people (or at least, I did) minimized the 'Ship ID', 'Ship' and often even 'Ship class'. For combat probing the only worthwhile columns are 'Ship type' and 'Distance'

    - Speaking of the distance column, it's entirely gone. I hope this is a bug -- if not, it kills the entire pvp metagame. F.e. bombing will be impossible and tier3 snipers will dominate everything

    - It's also not possible to sort results by any column. The usual way to have probe results setup is sorted by distance close>far or far>close.

    - The colors are very bright and distracting, it also doesn't line up with any other interface in Eve. Not a big fan of this.. although I do like the way percentage is shown by the length of the colored bar (just tone down the colors a bit)

    - The 'warp to' button is a bit silly, hardly anyone will do a personal warp to a result at 0. Most of the times a covops will warp at distance to not get decloaked, or someone would warp squad/wing/fleet. If in most cases a right click is required anyway, why waste so much space on a 'warp to 0' button?

    - Looks like 'Ignore result' and 'Ignore other results' are either reversed or just bugged in general. Results definitely aren't being hidden like they should be.

    - For the love of christ let us center the camera in the probe map on celestials from the overview again. This was changed a while ago and it sucks. CCP Karkur made some inquiries to this change, but I don't know if it's on the list to put back in the client. Previously a single click on a celestial on the overview (stations, planets, moons, everything) centered the camera on it

    - Probe formations are cool and useful. Dragging the entire probe set without holding shift is good too.

    This interface really needs work before it's actually an improvement...

    Oh god this... a member of my alliance took a screenshot

    Being able to see the distance to a target is MANDATORY for pvp many times there are multiple fleets of the same ship types on the grid that you need to know distance to distinguish them if you hadn't already ignored the results of your own fleet. And not being able to sort columns makes it extremely complicated to find the one ship that you want to warp to if you don't have a filter for every possible ship class.

    This feature needs a lot of work prior to being released.

    I am going to reiterate these facts because they are so crucial to the PvP aspects of the game. This feature, like everyone before me has point out, needs quite a bit of work before rolling it out to TQ. At the moment it looks promising, but only after a few polish passes.

  • Hi Resolution Texture Pack - Show Your Support!!! in EVE Communication Center

    This sounds sexy as hell. Count me in.

  • [CSM 8] James Arget - Wormholes and the Future in EVE Gameplay Center

    And my Limited Mega Ion Siege Blaster's...

  • POSes: I am a small portion of the community in Council of Stellar Management

    Please CCP. POSes need some sort of revamp. Either addressing the current system or a good hard look at the new modular POSes.