These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 2010-06-14 17:02
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 16:10
  • Number of Posts: 3,201
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Rek Seven

Security Status 1.2
  • ShekelSquad Member since
  • Interhole Revenue Service Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Nah the only limitation would need to be that you can't activate it while you have a combat timer.

    @ CCP & focus group - Glad to see that the warp speed bonus is being kept on the proteus Hyperspatial sub. However, don't you think it is a bit weak? The warp bonus is a great idea but I think it needs to be at least a 15% per level bonus to make it worth riging/implanting for.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Noxisia Arkana wrote:
    Rek Seven wrote:
    @Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem?

    Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast.



    The logs linked in the first page show the reasoning. But there's a lot of discussion still around this. Essentially it's a tip to the nullified subs agility sucking.


    I understand that the warp bonus is being added to the nullification sub because there were concerned that the align time penalty associated with that sub would kill hunter killer gameplay in null sec...

    What i do not understand is why the warp speed bonus had to be removed from the Hyperspatial subsystem, at the same time?

    This completely removes the ability for T3s to travel quickly across multiple systems. Currently on TQ the bonus to warp speed is too weak, so that sub hardly ever got used. With the re-balance it should have been buffed to something like 15% per level to make it a useful bonus... but instead it's just going to be removed?

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    @Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem?

    Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I don't know if this idea has been suggested but T3C should work as follows...

    The cruisers should be able to be refit without the use of a mobile depot (or similar) not under a combat timer. Saved fittings should be able to be instantly applied while in space providing there is not combat/weapons timer.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I have been messing around with the cloaky proteus fits and it seem under-powered in comparison to the tengu... The tengu gets great DPS at great range while the proteus gets ok dps at close range only. Armour vs shield tank is also uneven when you use ancillary reps, not only in power but in cap dependency.

    Harvey James wrote:
    the command/logi or even e-war + etc... begs too differ.. very useful in small gang pvp when have limited pilots so 1 ship doing 2 jobs can be a big deal... also that cap stable shield boosting 1k dps tengu has enough tank.


    I was talking about the flexibility the modular design of T3 supposedly offer, not the ability to do two jobs as that is not changing, fundamentally.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The tank on the covert options are garbage unless you fit a passive tank and to me, this alone indicates that the design choice behind this is flawed. So if CCP are going to stick with that, the DPS absolutely needs to be high! Don't forget that you are in a mush squishier ship that when you die in, you lose skill points.

    Every ship needs to excel at on thing, otherwise people will always choose the the better alternative... And no. Flexibility isn't a compelling enough feature because you can't apply that flexibility on the battlefield.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Nasar Vyron wrote:
    Rek Seven wrote:
    What? So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys!

    Give it specific bonuses to medium drones only, to make it unique.


    The Gila would like a word with you.


    Fair point. I was thinking unique in the role of an armour drone boat.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    What? So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys!

    Give it specific bonuses to medium drones only, to make it unique.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Although it is not a problem for my play style, I think that people do have legitimate concerns with regards to the cloak and scanning roles being linked.

    Again, I would suggest that a new line of industrial/pve subsystems are added and that the exploration roles could be tied to this. This would mean keeping the 5 subsystem model.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Noxisia Arkana wrote:

    I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.


    I think the problem here is that people view the situation incorrectly. You have to remember that DPS and tank are not abilities exclusive to HACs so it is unfair for people to say that this makes the T3 a better HAC. The problem is that the majority of HACs are poorly designed (especially for close range combat) and need better bonuses/abilities.

    Recon ships are already better at their job than a T3, so i'm not sure what the issue is here.

    Dior Ambraelle wrote:

    @Rek Seven: I would only move the probe and analyzer systems to the core, the cloak would stay in defense. The cloak gives a huge advantage that needs to be balanced somewhere. We already have enough offensive systems, and losing potential e-war bonus is not really a big deal for a lot of people.


    Ah ok. Personally i have no problem with the cloak, probe and exploration bonuses being on the same sub systems, it actually makes scene! My problem is the new cloak defensive subsystem is linked to a local repair bonus, which will be useless in 90% of the situations cloaked ships are currently used for. There are so many sacrifices you have to make to fit a viable local reps tank that it is often better to use a passive, thus making the bonus unused.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Noxisia Arkana wrote:

    In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...


    Make the cargo sub a propulsion sub and don't give it anywhere near the capacity of a transport ship. Problem solved.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    @ Dior Ambraelle, you are not wrong but all i would say is that even though you may feel the T3 industrial is not needed or that we already have suitable ORE alternatives, i feel that adding these would diversify the ship class and help maintain demand for T3 components.

    Within wormhole space we would see more people gas mining (or ore/ice mining if they had bonuses) in expensive ships, which creates a much more worthwhile target over the 1mil isk venture.

    Good idea moving the cloak/probe to the core sub.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I don't like the 7.5% rep bonus for the cloak/probe subsystem. It will either limit the use too much or will be unused when the ship is part of a fleet. It would be much better to have a resistance bonus.

    I'm very disappointing that CCP didn't take this opportunity to add a few new subsystems. I would like to see a set of industrial subsystems for industry which would have bonuses/roles for the following:

    Gas mining amount bonus (offensive sub): This should enable the players to create the best gas mining ship in the game. i.e. better than the venture

    Mass reduction (defensive sub): Reduces the mass of a T3 so that they can fit though a frigate hole but reduces the tank of the T3

    Increase cargo hold (core): allows the T3 to be used as a transport ship or increases hole for mining

  • Every year, there are less users playing, why?? in EVE Communication Center

    And yet you argue with me without offering a counter point and instead resorting to name calling and pointless comments.

    I have said what i want to say. If you feel the need to continue this via email, feel free to do so. I'm happy to just go about my day.

  • Every year, there are less users playing, why?? in EVE Communication Center

    Read the original quote idiot. Swimming is the player action, the water is the content in this analogy.

    The act of playing the game is not game content, it is simply interacting with the game content within the designed limits. If you believe otherwise, then i would say you are wrong.

  • Every year, there are less users playing, why?? in EVE Communication Center

    You really don't get it though and are just picking spinets of what i said to support your argument.

    You have started a new argument here by saying it is ok to uses a general word to replace a specific one. That was what the fruit and water analogies were about.

    My main point is that playing a game is not game content. End of.

    Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

    Players swim in water, but do not add water! The only people who add water in EVE are the developers.


    Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And why people take offence at it? [/quote]

    I did sound ridiculous because you misunderstood what i was saying... So i fixed it for you.

  • Every year, there are less users playing, why?? in EVE Communication Center

    Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

    If your point was that they were correct, but vague - and that they should use more precise wording...Then you should have said it. Not argued that their word was "wrong".



    They are correct in the same sense as saying the cup is full of atoms, instead of the cup is full of coffee. to me this is wrong.

    Rek Seven wrote:
    It's strange how eve player think they create content by simply playing the game. Maybe it's just a lack of vocabulary...

    Players create actions, activities or opportunities but not content. The only people who great content in EVE are the developers.

    For me it is important to make the distinction because I have just cancelled my subscription and was asked to give a reason why - I selected "lack of content". This is not me saying there are not enough players doing things in game, it is me saying "I am bored with what CCP has put in the game".

  • Every year, there are less users playing, why?? in EVE Communication Center

    Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

    Basically you heard somebody saying the swimming pool is full of liquid...and you've spent several pages arguing and trying to convince him that "NO no no no no it isn't full of liquid...its full of...um....that other thing....But DEFINITELY NOT LIQUID!!!"


    So if the pool is full of oil instead of water, you don't think that is an important distinction to make? Roll

    Your logic is flawed and you miss the point. If there is a specific word for a specific thing then there is no reason to use a general word for that thing and to argue other wise is idiotic. If i want ten oranges and 5 apples, I don't ask my greengrocer for 15 fruit... which is essentially what you are saying i should do.

    Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

    edit: Particularly when you can't even supply any better words to fill the same role...


    I provided several examples of better/specific terms: PVP, player conflict, a fight, a gank, war, hunting...

  • Every year, there are less users playing, why?? in EVE Communication Center

    Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
    and explained that your position is also ridiculous. *everything in the game - player made or CCP made - is content*.


    I'll stop you there. I have made it clear that i do not agree with this so it's pointless to continue. I can accept that players want to use a word incorrectly, i'm just pointing out that the word is being used incorrectly. So just accept that.

    It's like arguing that a swimming pool full of water is actually a swimming pool full of liquid. Technically both are right but the guy who said it is full of water is more right.Roll

  • Every year, there are less users playing, why?? in EVE Communication Center

    No really but whatever, let's move on.

Forum Signature