These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 2012-03-17 14:21
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-07-21 04:02
  • Likes Received: 0

Nevyn Auscent

Security Status 5.0
  • Broke Sauce Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Semi-Epic Arcs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Except it does require maintaining, even missions require checking over with updates.
    And it would still become stale, it would just take a fraction longer to do so.

  • Semi-Epic Arcs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    What you want is procedural world driven missions.
    Where factions have 'hubs' that they spill out from that can be either known faction spaces, or hidden moving constellations in enemy territory that reflect their current 'efforts'.
    And those factions then attempt to achieve objectives in those areas and you can pick sides in said objectives and engage appropriate NPC's.

    Think creep for how the system works, except instead of creep it's density & difficulty of missions.

  • To: The Developers (Please Make The Game Modular) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    See t3 cruisers. You won't get it for the rest of the game
    If you want modular ships, pick another game.

  • Fleet Boost Duration vs Command Burst Module Cycle Time in EVE Technology and Research Center

    It's also to allow people to miss a cycle at max skills and miss almost no time being boosted. And a few other aspects along those lines.
    If you are a stationary boosting orca with stationary barges around you, yes it doesn't have much meaning. On the other hand the charges are also so so so so so cheap it doesn't matter.

  • Potential ways out of the current unstable market conditions? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    @ Op.
    The recent change was nothing to do with the markets. Or not in a direct matter anyway.
    It was to do with a small portion of the game producing isk out of proportion with the rest of the game. Or to put it perhaps better, wealth concentration.

    EVE as a game wants everyone to have plenty of isk to use & lose cool stuff. If the isk skews too much into a small percentage of players hands, other people get locked off from a lot of cool stuff by the isk barrier. Obviously you don't want it to be too easy either or the stuff ceases to be cool since it has no meaning, and people should be rewarded for smart play, but it was out of scale.

    A supply mechanic would not have been a bad thing to begin with though it would have to be set very high, but introducing it now is pretty much impossible, too many groups would suddenly get hit by massive bills. Instead I'd suggest looking at high sec, and while you can't own sov in highsec if there was more meaning to highsec wars I suspect a LOT of isk and material would get sunk on them. May I suggest removing 90% of high sec stations for example, so citadel control in a system matters.

  • The map is missing some features that would make it a lot more nice in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The first you can do, it's under autopilot settings

    As for the filters, they would make intel too easy, there is already a lot of intel on the map, filtering it like that would remove any effort in extracting the intel. right now Map intel is balanced by skill and effort to extract it to some degree.

  • Potentially Insane Change to Blops in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Blops really just need to be able to warp cloaked, Then they can roam as well as hotdrop. Sure they are great for hotdrops, but eh.

  • Dividing High Sec borders with Low Sec in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dior Ambraelle wrote:
    Actually, I think it would be possible to separate the factions with FW zones that are connected to the rest of low and null sec and this way make it faster to leave hi-sec (Couster is a good example, it's literally in the middle of hi-sec, you need to jump a lot to get out) while not cutting the factions completely, only reducing the number of routes where you can move through hi-sec without leaving it.

    So you want more Niarja's where Freighters simply can't avoid it and if they want to gank you they can kill your webbing alt one jump out, and then the freighter at their leisure?

  • Ability to capture a citadel. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Scialt wrote:

    That either suggests that adding the isk incentive causes no difference in behavior (which neither one of us seem to believe... you suggest it will cause wonton destruction of small corp citadels, while I believe it would cause more space conquering in null), or perhaps there was a lot more scooping of structures going on with POS kills that we have no record of. We do know that 1640 towers were killed in May of 2015 compared to 555 Citadels and EC's this May. People are still prioritizing the killing of POS towers though... probably because they drop stuff and are easier to kill. We still had over 1000 towers killed in may.

    Most POS towers die with just an empty stick with no modules. Occasionally defences die.
    The SMA kills are very rare, look at the value and you'll find that its a few very high value kills making that up, not a consistent stream of regular value kills, because people simply don't put value into POS towers except in WH's, where loot also drops from Citadels, (& I'm not sure if that loot shows properly on the KM's, never killed a Citadel in WH space so can't confirm either way).

    So, you are equating a dead stick POS in highsec perhaps to a Citadel kill. In both cases 99% of the time we are only talking the base structure.
    Null you might get a bit more from defence mods, but even there it's almost never going to be a high value SMA or something since that gets cleared 99% of the time if there ever was something there to begin with.

    If you want an easier way to reduce Citadel spam, remove the 0% asset safety for a Citadel in the same system. Make it 5% or 2% or 1%, still cheaper than the 15% option, but still some sting. Then spamming Citadels doesn't let you keep your stuff for free, and every time one goes down that you were using it costs. So it becomes a less effective strategy for defence since it bleeds your own isk for your assets as well as your citadels.

  • CCP again makes fools of us! in EVE Communication Center

    Bron Ander Haltern wrote:


    Well if you see no difference between "The compounds are only guaranteed to function until YC119/30/06" and expiry date is 2017.06.30 00:00:00 I can't really help, you got to go back to school :(.

    With dates the word “until” seems to be ambiguous. Let’s turn to the IRS site for help. Naturally! It explains, “April 15 of each year is the due date for filing your Federal individual income tax return, if your tax year ends December 31. Your return is considered filed timely if the envelope is properly addressed and postmarked no later than April 15”. Therefore, taxpayers have until April 15 to stand in line at the post office and get the envelope postmarked. April 14 is fine; April 15 is fine; April 16 is not.

    That's just an example untill with a date means precisely, all over the world, end of that day 23:59:59 not the beginning 00:00:00.

    Except your example does not use the word until. It uses the words 'no later than'.

    Until: up to (the point in time or the event mentioned).
    If used in programming or correct grammar it does exactly what CCP have said it does.
    Once the date is the 30th, they are no longer guaranteed to work. It's correct English, the error is in your understanding.

  • Proposal for change mining in EVE Communication Center

    You fight botting by banning bots.
    Barge mining rate is not an issue in the current game at all.

  • Change Mineral Abundance to Scarcity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Inflation isn't actually a major driver of the mineral market.
    All the big moves in the mineral market have been directly related to a mineral consumption or production change. I.E. Tiericide of ships, Changes to Capitals, Citadels, Barge changes, Rorqual changes, changes to Null ore composition.

    Mainly because EVE actually (till last month) hasn't had very much inflation, and mineral market trends have continued steady even when the isk supply has flipped into deflation, which says it's not the primary control on the market.

  • Streamlining BC's BS's in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Gregorius Goldstein wrote:
    If people wanted to fly big E-War ships we would see more Scorpions around?

    If we saw more BS fleets you actually might.
    It's hard to say if that's 'people don't want BS sized ewar' or 'People don't fly BS fleets' when BS fleets are so unpopular in the meta for most things (Citadel sieges in Null are a different affair to most things obviously).

  • Mineral changes to pirate BS on SISI in EVE Communication Center

    It's Sisi, till it hits TQ it doesn't count.
    Even Dev blogged stuff is subject to change.

  • Streamlining BC's BS's in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Destroyers & BC's are not direct continuations of the line.

    Your line goes Frigate > Cruiser . Battleship.
    With Destroyer & Battlecruiser as side shoots along the way that add some abilities not fielded by the standard class size, but aren't a size step.

    So trying to shoehorn BC's into the standard hull splits is always doomed.

  • Random Public Events | Yay Or Nay ; Thoughts? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    This is what incursions are meant to be at a basic level. Though they should be more dynamic.
    But when dealing with space and distance rather than having everyone zoned by 'level' you need events to run over several days to allow people to relocate resources and bring fleets to bear.

    If you are talking about making anomalies more dynamic content, that's a bit of a different matter of course, and they can be fast things, but a very different beast since most will be done solo or by two at that point.

    Really the sort of thing you are talking about should happen without players being involved with the NPC's actually being organic and reacting appropriately to things and having more realistic system defences and the like. but that would be a HUGE change to the game.

  • Change Mineral Abundance to Scarcity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    And back then you got Tritanium from shuttle reprocessing which put a hard cap on Trit on the market.
    And mineral requirements to build the BS were less, having been dramatically changed in the ship tiericide as one particular instance.

    So yes, you have no idea about the mineral market.

  • Change Mineral Abundance to Scarcity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Main reason your idea is terrible.
    It gives too much advantage to specific days of the week.

    Also, fact check.
    The Drone alloy removal was part of gun mining, with CCP wanting to put the emphasis on miners producing minerals, not ratters producing their own minerals. it was nothing to do with reducing mineral supply.
    Reprocessing change actually INCREASED the minerals you got if you had full skills and a proper facility.

    In short, learn the actual reasons why stuff happened and the impact they actually had, before talking out your ass.

  • T3C rebalance question in EVE Communication Center

    The SP loss is not an excuse to keep them OP, as that mostly makes the SP loss meaningless for a start since they win most of their fights through being OP. But cost is not a suitable balancing factor, and SP loss is simply part of the cost.
    As for time, T3C's require pretty much the same time to truly make shine as a HAC does. They need all the same weapon systems and the Subskills are *1's, hardly a big train to get them all to V.
    So no, none of those excuse them being OP and out of their correct place in the power hierarchy.

  • This Week in EVE #156 - Week 24/2017 in EVE Information Center

    April rabbit wrote:

    You know the IRONY: after casino war everyone was yelling "goons are ded!". Lol

    A few idiots who didn't know any better does not constitute 'everyone'.