These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 2011-04-12 20:00
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-06 14:54
  • Number of Posts: 3,034
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Nariya Kentaya

Security Status 2.7
  • Ministry of War Member since
  • Amarr Empire Faction

Last 20 Posts

  • A reward for 10Y+ people active playing , a small one, Devs hear me !! in EVE Communication Center

    Memphis Baas wrote:
    Two thoughts:

    - Some people have played since 2003 but may have sold or deleted their 2003 characters. Finding the player, rather than the account or character, may be difficult.

    - Turn this on CCP, and ask them to give a plaque to all their employees who have been with the company since 2003 (i.e. not fired, not hired at a later date). Think about the kind of reactions this "gesture" would cause.

    Then think about how 2004 or later players may feel, or how extreme contributors (Chribba, FC's who provide fun fights daily to their peers, the administrators of the game-related websites we use every day, and so on) may feel.

    I think that CCP's idea to reward everyone is better.

    umm, i dont know where you live, but giving out plaque and 500+ dollar "prizes" to every employee that hits a milestone (usually in the 25-40 year range which puts them as some of the seniorest members in the company) is fairly standard practice for multiple large companies in my area.

    no, none of us like being forced to attend a "party" to congratulate a manage we hate, but the companies still do it

  • PvE fatigue: Phoebe for PvE in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Gevlon Goblin wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    When it comes to making ISK Eve has always been a boring grindfest.

    Time for a change then!


    This wont change that though, it just limits the boring grindfest and frustrates players.

    Suggest something to enhance PvE, not limit it. If anything CCP wants people to log in, not provide incentives to log out.

    heres an idea to make endlessly grinding pvp harder without arbitrary ****, just give the NPC factions their own patrolling fleets/raids like the drfiters, thats what you rat, and missions involve you finding a fleet within a particular system.

    and then for nullsec you have pirate/empire fleets responding to you based on your recent activity. shot at some sansha rats? sansha fleets roaming your space now.

    and maybe of course give the NPCs their own miners and pseudo-player "accounts" to balance out their productive and unit-spam abilities to be on par with just a really dedicated player group, and you have artifically created a new faction fighting in high/low/null without having to cry about whos fault this blue doughnut or that stagnant space is


    basically, make PvE take time, but pay out more, so overall it makes relatively the same as now, but the payout comes in larger more spread out chunks. basically no more AFK-running missions.

  • The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers in EVE Communication Center

    Violet Crumble wrote:
    Nariya Kentaya wrote:
    but trusting CCP to always make the best chocie when presented the option between what the data says and what the loudest whiners want doesnt always pan out too well

    So we should have CCP arbitrarily nerf things for our own self serving purposes before someone else does, because we don't trust them to be objective?

    Is that the thrust of what you are saying?

    im just saying never assume CCP will always make the right choice, no one is perfect, thats a given, but a lapse in judgement on their part will effect the game for years to come.

    especially since data and choices based on it mean nothing, data and what it means is completely dependent on whos interpreting it, which again, leaves room for some not so good choices if player whining colors a devs PoV

  • CCP - End Passive Income in EVE Technology and Research Center

    sabre906 wrote:
    Blue dohnut won't end until moon-goo income is removed.

    I know very well the logistics and defensive headaches of maintaining moon poses. It's hard work. But that's not the point. It's not about what's "fair." If the goal of fuzziesov is to end blue dohnut and give small guys a chance at sov, this has to be done.

    If fozzie wants to do it, he'll do it. We won't be able influence him by making disingenuous posts in defense of our moon goo. All it does is make us look like idiots to everyone who looks at the forums in the process. There's no point. Whatever will be, will be.

    to be fair, if Fozzie wanted to remove ISK from the game and seed everything on the market that you buy with the 1 remaining mineral type for currency, no matter how much we complained it woudl still get put in

  • The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers in EVE Communication Center

    Violet Crumble wrote:
    Nariya Kentaya wrote:
    right now, the chances of the JF bonus being removed are low because nullsec can just keep going "but look look, we cant possible sustain ourselves industrially, theres no infrastructure", a gradual nerf would force them to start building up early on so when the eventual changes hit forcing their independence, they wont have any real excuses to try and mitigate their inconvenience from the change (though honestly, they shoulda just cut off the JF cold turkey to start with, woulda at least started a little chaos as people moved to rearrange their holdings to provide reliabel supply lines)

    Sorry, but I don't quite see the logic in this one.

    I can claim till I'm black and blue in the face that I'm not wearing a green top, but you can easily look at my portrait and see that I am.

    Same with nullsec industry. I (as a nullsec industrialist) could continue to scream till I'm black and blue in the face that I can't sustain myself, but all CCP needs to do is look at the metrics and see how much research, invention, copying and manufacturing is being done in null (and the trends caused by changes in the game) to tell whether my perspective is real or not.

    As long as CCP are in a position to understand the data they collect, the evidence of activity is a much stronger indicator than what any of us say.

    but trusting CCP to always make the best chocie when presented the option between what the data says and what the loudest whiners want doesnt always pan out too well

  • The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers in EVE Communication Center

    Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    . We would like to remove these bonuses in future, but we don’t feel nullsec industry is in a sufficiently strong place that it would be prudent to do so right now.[/i]
    CCP should reduce the bonuses on black ops and industrials by 10% each month.

    actually, that would be a wonderful idea to go ahead and give nullsec a kcik and force them to start prepping for the eventual change.

    right now, the chances of the JF bonus being removed are low because nullsec can just keep going "but look look, we cant possible sustain ourselves industrially, theres no infrastructure", a gradual nerf would force them to start building up early on so when the eventual changes hit forcing their independence, they wont have any real excuses to try and mitigate their inconvenience from the change (though honestly, they shoulda just cut off the JF cold turkey to start with, woulda at least started a little chaos as people moved to rearrange their holdings to provide reliabel supply lines)

  • Stacking Penalty in EVE Communication Center

    Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
    Nariya Kentaya wrote:
    Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
    Rat Scout wrote:
    What is wrong with you people telling him to learn to use google. This game is an MMO and the forums should be used to interact with other players. He asked a legit question, give an answer and move on.

    Trolls.

    100%
    86%
    57%
    ..... don't go past this


    decent guideline I would stick to. although at some point realize it may be okay to break.

    in the event of resist mods on expensive ships, especially say a maruader or capital, where your already approaching 80% plus across on resists, a 4th aint always so bad. though you get more benefit out of a plate, those arent always available. (though wasnt there a low fitting cost mod that gave a percent armor HP boost, i seem to recall seeing one but never using it)


    2 EANMs or invluns and one of each specific hardener, is pretty standard on a super cap. an extra hardener on the lowest resist makes some sense. and yea there is a energized armor layering membrane that gives a percentage based armor hp bonus. not sure if it is preferred to fit one of those or a reactive armor hardener?

    for a marauder I'm not sure I would go with 4x resist mods. a damage control and bastion aren't on the stack, so resists can get very good very quickly, and as you can't get remote reps in bastion I'm not sure stacking that much resist helps, plus you will be leaving a hole somewhere else. Not sure if there is PVE content that really pushes that? feel like you would just run out of slots too fast. marauder will need its slots to do its job, where a super just needs all the HP it can get, plus will likely have a nearby carrier to refit off of.

    eh, i sacrifice about 2 minutes per level 4 in DPS to overtank my omni-tanked mission marauder because people have tried to gank me before. Ive had friends that were ganked, and getting ganked once is a good way to get targeted for more ganks later, so id rather be way overtanked for the cost it woudl take to kill me, and do missions a little slower, than set myself as a target for future gank attempts (plus wrecks from unsuccessful gank attempts are a good cash bonus in missions)

    and as for resists, slightly less EHP on my marauder was worth the speed bonus a plate woulda taken away, and 4 resists means even my "resist hole" is over 80%, so theres that.

    maybe im overly cautious, but living in wormholes most of my EVE career, i learned the best way to not lose your stuff is to never give the opponent a chance to take it, and since i dont like docking up because "oh noes scary gank pirates in my 0.5", id rather just overtank and be about my day

  • CCP - End Passive Income in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Reiisha wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:
    Feel free to set up your own risk free moon mining operation.


    While the OP may be going a bit far, the jist of the issue is that there are a lot of activities in EVE that don't require you to log in for long stretches of time, relatively to what you're getting out of it. PI and moon mining are the most prominent examples.

    It's not about defending the latter either, but about how little interactivity such a system actually needs to work, and still be profitable. I would argue that the amount of passive activities in EVE is a direct cause of the stagnation of the amount of people online (of of, you know what i mean), and that has to be looked at.

    moon mining again, is only possible by havign a large popluation of ACTIVE combat pilots to defend it, and a full logistics wing to support the network, moon mining is only valuable as it is in mass (and it will be even harder to passively do as CCP rolls out the structure changes)

    as for PI, yes, managing 5 planets between 2 lowsec systems to produce the materials for one final product being made on the sixth, in an untankable, non-combat industrial makes WAY too much money for the risk associated with it.

    PI is profitable not because of time at the keyboard involved, its the logistics in maintaining everythign needed for it to work, whether thats POCO occupancy, or just learning to avoid the local pirates who would more than love to pop a bestower hauling 100mil of goods between planets for production

  • drifters acting starnge in EVE Communication Center

    Zealous Miner wrote:
    Ryomaru Reaper wrote:
    I remember watching a video, with someone from CCP saying that they'd wanted to implement npc's that weren't static?

    Like as in they'd be doing some weird crazy stuff on their OWN accord...

    Thus creating content without intervention from CCP. That'd be amazing if they'd been making these far strides of A.I programming.

    Oh, great. Self-aware Drifters. The most enigmatic and dangerous NPCs in the most unforgiving online game ever can now think for themselves.

    Just what the world needs, right? This couldn't possibly result in a Skynet scenario. Lol

    now if only we can get that AI put in charge of all the NPC factions, make the game *reall* "dynamic and dangerous"

  • CCP - End Passive Income in EVE Technology and Research Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Feel free to set up your own risk free moon mining operation.

    i dont think OP understands moon mining requires military supriority, which means that "mad profitz" has to be split up to maintain that military superiority, after all, why would they defend it if it didnt benefit them?

    and as for PI, yeah, set up PI in highsec and see how much you make, then set it up in low and see how long its "risk free" once locals start seeing T2 transports regularly in system with the same pilot by the same planet

  • Requesting the CSM to ask CCP to remove Jump Fatigue in Council of Stellar Management

    knobber Jobbler wrote:
    Conflict Engaged wrote:
    Jump Fatigue is a very nice way to limit travel times, which gives traveling the need for a strategic think of what you're doing, but where Jump Bridges are concerned, it's quite pointless. Maybe if CCP were to remove Jump Fatigue completely, add something else such as fuel costs to the mix, to slow down how quickly you can get from A to B, or make you review whether travelling your 200+ supercap fleet across New Eden for an invasion is actually worth it.


    Fuel costs won't work unless they engineer them to be so astronomically high no matter how many are produced. How much fatigue and how it was gained needs more thought.

    If the aim was to prevent people dog piling in on a system within 20 minutes of a fight kicking off, then the current mechanics are way to severe and need to be targeted more cleverly. I'd be happy with a compromise whereby the larger the ship mass, the more fatigue is accumulated but in turn the distances that can be jumped needs to be increased and the build up of space aids decreased. It shouldn't have to take a couple of days to jump from Tribute to Delve in a taxi carrier, there is no fun in that. It's just wasted time but I could live with it taking a good few hours to prevent the whole dog piling thing.


    why shouldnt it? why shouldnt you be inconvenienced enough by local geography and distances to care? why should 1 power be able to go to war with another power on the other side of new eden?

    answer, they shouldnt. Because as long as you are able to reach that power on the other side of the galaxy and remain comfortable, ANY group or power that tries to build itself up between you and them is easy pickings for both parties, because they are well within reach.

    The current fatigue system was designed with extreme penalties because some places are Supposed to be out of reach! as long as there are areas you cant get to without severely inconveniencing yourself, then there are areas where the map can change.

  • new contract type... in EVE Technology and Research Center

    ShahFluffers wrote:
    Already existed. It was called a "Loan Contract" and they worked almost exactly the way you describe (put down collateral, get item for certain period of days).

    It was removed because...

    - it was rarely used for it's intended purpose (after all... why put down collateral and "rent" when you can just sell/use the collateral and buy what you want? You can sell it afterwards.)

    - when it was used, it was used to scam

    exactly, there is literally no benefit, and all the risk, to placing the collateral below hull value, and placing it at or above hull value means your better off buying it yourself.

    Theres really no point to renting in EVE, kinda like theres little point in outsourcing services, EVE just doesnt run like real life.

  • Stacking Penalty in EVE Communication Center

    Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
    Rat Scout wrote:
    What is wrong with you people telling him to learn to use google. This game is an MMO and the forums should be used to interact with other players. He asked a legit question, give an answer and move on.

    Trolls.

    100%
    86%
    57%
    ..... don't go past this


    decent guideline I would stick to. although at some point realize it may be okay to break.

    in the event of resist mods on expensive ships, especially say a maruader or capital, where your already approaching 80% plus across on resists, a 4th aint always so bad. though you get more benefit out of a plate, those arent always available. (though wasnt there a low fitting cost mod that gave a percent armor HP boost, i seem to recall seeing one but never using it)

  • Requesting the CSM to ask CCP to remove Jump Fatigue in Council of Stellar Management

    Conflict Engaged wrote:
    Jump Fatigue is a very nice way to limit travel times, which gives traveling the need for a strategic think of what you're doing, but where Jump Bridges are concerned, it's quite pointless. Maybe if CCP were to remove Jump Fatigue completely, add something else such as fuel costs to the mix, to slow down how quickly you can get from A to B, or make you review whether travelling your 200+ supercap fleet across New Eden for an invasion is actually worth it.

    it was about cost originally, if you recall jumps required and still do require Isotopes. It didnt stop them

  • How to make mining more involved! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    so, basically, anyone who isnt available to have their face focused on just one screen doing the same repetitive task thousands of times a day should just not log on to EVE at all?

    Sorry, but I have a day job. "minigames" stop being games when your forced to do them thousands of times, if we wanted minigames wed all be playing candy crush, not EVE.

    and whats so bad about having ONE playstyle that allowed someone to play while at work, or doing school things on a second monitor, mining is semi-active playstyle for people whod rather focus on other work or chat or mumble or whatever, people who for more reasons than just multi-boxing cant devote that much attention to the game.

    You want to take that away in favor of something that can ONLY be described as boring and repetitive monkey-work. This wont suddenly make people flock to mining as a "fun profession" it doesnt solve the "boring" gameplay you claim to want to fix. all it does is require people to exponentially increase the number of clicks and dedicated time on screen required for the same result, in a profession that doesnt make that much comparitively to begin with. This would drive away ALOT of people, not just multiboxing accounts, but actual people, from mining, and for many of them EVE as a whole.


    TL;DR leave mining alone, it serves its gameplay purpose, if you want a more active playstyle, they exist, there are THOUSANDS of them.

    (and like stated above, minigames like hacking suck because the less i can see of the screen for situational awareness, the less desire i have to make the risk, because i literally cant SEE any windows im reliant on to even know if im alone in the system let alone if they arer approaching on the d-scan i also cant see)

  • Anomalies rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Anoms need to go as the primary income generator in null space, they just don't work.

    well only 2 ways to do that is to remove NPC-generated money in null altogether, and instead focus its economy on bringing ISK generated in high into null for trade, via exports hauled by thrid party traders, but thats unrealistic because EVE structure is against traditional economic structures

    the other way is to add mission NPC's to null stations, and IMO i wouldnt want to see that, if only because it would be highly abusable, totally safe systems via intel channels pumping out ISK like soloing/blitzing level 5's or incursions? no thank you

    the reason anoms are whast used is they are a depletable income source, they dont spawn at the participants will and with predictable payout, if they operated like missions, then the economic bar for a newbie to move to nullsec would be shoved WAY up, because the price of everything local would be the hike from being made in "dangerous space" plus another hike because you made the seller work, and then another major hike becauseeveryone is expected to be farming their home system with a blitz-mission alt making incursion level income

    we dont wanna force noobs to grind missions for months just so they can afford ammo when they move to null.


    then again maybe im completely wrong, i dunno, 3 days without sleep and havent eaten in 18 hours, so whatevs

  • [QOL]Skill training queue in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mario Putzo wrote:
    While the unlimited time in the queue is awesome. Could we get a display of the number of skills in the queue against the cap?

    Example

    X/50

    yeah, if your going to put in a cap, at least stating somewhere how much is already in is kinda important.

  • Can I entosis an inactive pos? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    no, if onyl because IMO in ANY scenario, destruction should be easier than capture, but disincentived by cost/labor/time, if only so markets still exist for things because not every fight ends with 0 base infrastructure lost

  • Lets talk about logi. The inquisitor lost its missile bonus and rots. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    13kr1d1 wrote:
    Nariya Kentaya wrote:
    13kr1d1 wrote:
    In hangars.


    Lets face it, no one takes logi frigs because they're so fragile and don't actually do a lot. They're moderately useless in small gang pvp because things are over too quickly for their small bonuses to have an effect, even if they arent primaried.

    I've seen people prefer spider tanking dessie fleets, and you know something is wrong when a fleet doctrine doesn't involve having frigs to RAR.

    What is wrong with logis, and to a lesser extent, T1 ewar frigs? They're fragile as hell and don't provide that much bonus. They're difficult to use anywhere except in open space where the ewar can at least hold 60km off with superior locking range to land their stuff while avoidng being locked back and shot.... until dessies with sebo (svipul) or cruisers with light drone spam arrives. You guys ever try to fly a crucifier recently? With such low PG, few lowslots for an amarr frig, and massive CPU, they cant really tank and waste a lot of CPU with a full TD build and 1 prop.

    The logi frigs are even worse off, because not only are they fragile, but must be easily within range of all attacking enemies, while at the same time not producing much RR effect.

    Logi, imo, should have the options, slots, fitting, whatever, to be tanky enough to survive in close combat, while producing an effect similar to an unbonused logi of the next class up.

    Frig logi = unbonused cruiser RR.
    cruiser logi = unbonused battleship RR.

    And so on.

    A cruiser at the moment can be a cheaper and longer surviving logi, even without bonuses, and with 2x more transfer rate to a frig logi.

    This needs to be fixed unless the plan is to scrap those frigs altogether.

    a crucifier? yeah i fly them, and sentinels, with buddies in pvp, its a GREAT ship for small gang fight, and jumping a cruiser or battleship with a gang of 2 or 3 frigates.

    no, frigate versus frigate fleets are not the place for EWAR/logi frigs, but they are INVALUABLE when hunting larger ships, logi keeping frigs alive versus drones, and ewar frigs keeping larger guns from coming to bear on fleetmates (and in the case of one time where I was using a sentinel and we jumped a hyperion, keeping its reps from perma-running). and as for fitting the crucifier, yes, its a little squishy, but it shoudl be, i LOVE its midslots, honestly dont even use much in the lowslots.

    so just saying, your example of the crucifier is bad, and logi/EWAR frigs do have a point, your problem is they dont do what YOU want them to do.

    and again im gonna say this, LOGI SHOULD BE SQUISHY, saying "it shoudl have the tank to survive in close combat" is basiclaly saying "logi should be one of the harder things to kill on field", which emans all you want is mechanics to even more reinforce N+1 alpha-shot fleetplay


    If you're expecting to be using an ewar frig to deal with larger size ships, why not just bring the ewar cruiser?
    A logi frig has no DPS, the only thing it contributes is remote rep. You have N-1 attack frigs on the field if you put one out there, which means you've lost dps, and then logi gets primaried, dying without doing any repping, therefore being useless.

    The lack of logi tank is what encourages N+1 alpha shots.

    on the crucifier? i have drones for damage

    as for bringing the cruiser, its slower and easier to hit when engageing aforementioned larger targets

    as for n-1 atackers, guess what? its better to take a little longer to kill something effectively, than to go in with no force multiplier and get wiped because of 1 bad move, my crucifier's tracking disruptors and neuts prevent the enemy from outrepping our DPS, and prevents his turrets from getting a lucky blow (which with skilled battleship pilots IS possible, hence why we switched to havign an EWAR frig). Occasionally we even brought a logi frig, why? because when fighting cruisers, or the occasional experienced battleship pilot, even tracking disruptors werent 100% in removing his ability to manage transversal to land the occasional glancing blow.

    So again, logi frigs and ewar are PERFECT force multipliers for small gangs in that they stack TERRIBLY in fleets of 2 similar compositions, but work WONDERFULLY when fighting a single or group of larger enemies. this prevents the frig fleet from becoming a simple n+1 blobfest every time.


    and YES, if we REALLY wanted to, we might be slightly more efficient against opposing frigates swapping to all interceptors or something, but we fly what we like, and look for targets and opponents suited for the composition we choose to fly.

  • Bumping out of align mechanic in EVE Communication Center

    Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
    How many different times and different ways do ccp developers need to clarify that bumping is legal tactic and allowed and to use your brain/friends/resources to adapt and overcome being bumped?

    Its allowed, get over it

    overcome it how? if a group wants you dead, there is literally ZERO your friends can do to stop it in highsec, short of suice-ganking EVERY ship that could possible be used for a gank that just happens to be at the same gate the freighter currently is at.

    the fact is, there is a mechanic designed to rpevent warp, warp disruption modules. the fact that bumping can be used to hold a ship down near-indefintely so that hostiles that arent even at the gate can warp over, on their own time, and gank a ship that is being prevented from entering warp by mechanics outside of intended warp-disruption mechanics.

    Now im not against freighter ganking, or ganking in general, heck, and freighter hauling more than its hull worth in cargo, without full tank mods, needs to die.

    But right now the only REAL defense against suicide ganking in highsec, is to have more firends than possible suicide gankers, ready to suicide-gank every suicide-gank possible ship they come across en route. This entire system favors the criminals, in that they are able to manage to an exact measure their risk, and what possible rewards they can get, at their leisure, and without risk (cargo scanning a bumped freighter before following through with the pew), whereas the only way to DEFEND yourself in this mechanic is to commit a crime that prevents further operation (cant easily fly or escort a freighter with -5 standings).


    The imbalance comes from the fact that the characters required to defend and operate the freighter are dedicated characters with serious assets and progression within their field at risk, whereas the aggressors dont even need skilled characters, within a trial period they can create a character capable of flying the destroyers capable of wreaking havoc on whatever they choose. Its the fact that in this scenario, the aggressors rarely see consequences, and when they do they are consequences that dont matter (defending yourself gives you negative standing, cant haul in highsec with negative standing, attacking gives negative standing too, but guess what? doesnt amtter because your entire profession revolves around sacrificing a nearly free ship on a regular basis)


    im all for a change to the way NPC corps work to prevent members from being completely safe from wardecs as highsec hauling or missioning alts, but the aggression-free warp disruption of bumping needs to be reworked