These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 2011-03-06 23:08
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-03-24 13:58
  • Likes Received: 0

Rivr Luzade

Security Status 4.1
  • Coreli Corporation Member since
  • Mercenary Coalition Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Bounty Hunting & Killright Mechanics Redesign in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I find it commendable that you made it so that only people who committed a criminal action could get a bounty and an active killright. It's a good contrast to all the other suggestions which allowed anyone to put a bounty-killright on randoms for no reason whatsoever, ie. a killright on someone for a couple of ISK. Those ideas are all broken beyond repair.

    Now what's left to figure out is to prevent abuse by alts.

  • Solution to AFK Cloakers? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    And you created another redundant thread for the topic that has its own sticky. You should have posted your redundant stuff there regardless if it has been posted there already or not. This is, after all, precisely the point of this sticky: collect all the "original" ideas and solutions to AFK cloaking from people who are too lazy to search for already existing ideas and solutions and those who want to post their stuff anyways. Or you could have posted in the new forum, in order to take away the redundancy justification because it's a "fresh start". Oh, and before you go over there and post a new topic with your "original" idea: There is already an AFK collection topic going on on the new forums, so post your idea in that topic. Roll

    That aside, you don't have to read through all the 500 pages. If you know how to use Google, you can make google/duckduckgo/bing/yahoo/etc do the work for you. Like this., which leads to several suggestions involving capacitor drawbacks for cloaking, even old collection topics for your "original" idea. Roll This search took me 2 minutes, by the way.

  • Solution to AFK Cloakers? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    ImYourMom wrote:
    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    The problem is really the lack of options. With no way to force any action upon the cloaker, much less a fight, it creates a one sided "I Win" scenario where you can waste multiple peoples time indefinitely or simply leave the space entirely by either moving systems or logging off.

    No option to force interaction or a fight? Put ratting ships out and fit them properly and with a cyno and have a defense fleet ready, something that you have to have ready these days in any case because of all the Rorqs. If they don't bite, you can keep ratting, if they bite, you have your fight and they get dunked (ideally).

    You know that they fit cynos, and cynos jump in caps or blops etc? You know that right?

    I am well aware. I live in Null sec and I (used to) bait hunters regularly. It does not matter what they bring if you know it beforehand. That may require a sacrifice or two of your own to find out, it may only require a look at their killboard. It obviously also means that you need to know your surroundings and at least know from how far away BLOPS/caps can reach you or if there is a WH in the area with known droppers. Furthermore, not every cloaky camper has cynos, some just sit in your system to psychologically prevent you from doing something or make your defense fleets feel bored. Some cloaky campers are also completely useless because they sit somewhere in a ship that cannot warp cloaked, in other words, you know when they do something because you see them coming.

    I have done some extensive note taking on campers/hunters in my ratting areas and can tell with a great level of confidence what someone is going to do. This also helps a lot against cloaky campers. Obviously, having competent neighbors who check signature for wormholes, roll them, or sacrifice themselves to campers so that you can find out what's going on helps a lot.

    It got mentioned again last Fanfest in one of the panels and (recollection from memory) Fozzy's team admitted that the camping in itself is not a problem but the psychological barrier it creates is problematic, and that they are thinking about how to tackle this.

  • Solution to AFK Cloakers? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    The problem is really the lack of options. With no way to force any action upon the cloaker, much less a fight, it creates a one sided "I Win" scenario where you can waste multiple peoples time indefinitely or simply leave the space entirely by either moving systems or logging off.

    No option to force interaction or a fight? Put ratting ships out and fit them properly and with a cyno and have a defense fleet ready, something that you have to have ready these days in any case because of all the Rorqs. If they don't bite, you can keep ratting, if they bite, you have your fight and they get dunked (ideally).

  • Officer cargo scanner in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Donnachadh wrote:
    is increase the hassles for those who haul.

    Knowing who he is, that's his point entirely. Blink

  • Wealth tax in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Old Pervert wrote:
    ******* socialists.

    "they have too much money, tax them more".

    If it weren't so common in real life, I might be okay with it in game.

    The contrast that this works in RL, not in EVE because taxes in EVE get destroyed not put back into the society.

    That aside, taxing 1B ISK? 1B ISK is nothing in the world of EVE. It buys you a single T3C or Faction BS with proper fitting. Real richness is beyond 100B and even this is nothing. While your tax would destroy immense sums of ISK from the really rich, it would in particular also destroy a lot of ISK from the the EVE citizens who barely have enough to have sustainable fun.

  • Bowhead are too tanky in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Daichi Yamato wrote:
    Stuff needs to die more.

    Then tell the gankers to gank more AFK haulers but leave the active haulers alone? It is true that there are a lot of autopiloting freighters in Niarja and Uedama (I regularly see a group of 5-7 Fenrirs, since a couple of weeks a group of 4 Charons, too) autopilot through there several times a day. But CFCODE leaves them alone. If gankers were interested in just the ganking like in the old days, there wouldn't be a problem. But they are now also just interested in making a profit, the rest of the allegedly positive aspects don't matter to them anymore.

  • Bowhead are too tanky in EVE Technology and Research Center

    That's not only stupidity going unpunished, that's screwed up gameplay on part of the gankers because they let their own freighters or freighters that paid move around with AP without attacking them. Instead of punishing them, they punish freighters that actually play actively like I do just because I web and scout.
    I don't see how traders, producers, miners or haulers miss out, though. Traders get their stuff delivered to sell the things elsewhere; producers get their stuff delivered to build and sell their end products; miners get their ship replacements deliverd or their minerals/ore hauled to sale/production locations; haulers have lots of business if they are faster than the autopilot people. Not to mention that they can use the AFK autopilot haulers as cover and hope they distract the bumper long enough so that they can warp off.

    10 Taloses is not a lot. And it's not "only". Lots of groups can get this done: WHales must die in Niarja/Madir, some group around Eitu does it regularly, CODE obviously, CFC obviously, Russian weekend gank squads, Pandemic Horde occasionally, Pandemic Legion even. Wormhole groups like Hard Knocks Inc did it in the past with just 4 players multiboxing. Every public roam gets hundred characters in fleet easily.

    There is no problem at all with having a mid-sized gang of characters (I refuse to see them as players because everything can be done with alts) to gank something as big as a freighter. If a single character could gank them (which actually is possible if you lure them into a duel with your bumper), things would be much worse than they are now.

  • Bowhead are too tanky in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Daichi Yamato wrote:
    Tried to tell them this when it first came out. Can you believe that the carebears said that even the current amount of tank wasn't high enough. They wanted it to be unprofitable to gank even when it was carrying dead space fit pirate battleships.

    All freighters tank too much. Stupidity isn't punished enough and the smart lose out because of it.

    Just nerf raw hp. As should have been done with the dc changes.

    Tank too much? A ship without any defensive capability that can be ganked wiht 6 Taloses or 12 Bombers tanks too much? I scout my freighters, web my freighters, take detours with my freighters to minimize gank ability and yet I get threatened and bumped by gankers still. I wonder, which stupidity you are talking about that should be punished.

    Not to mention that this person complains about a failed gank, I presume, where they selected a target that was actually prepared for the dangers in space, and now the ganker complains that people in otherwise defenseless ships can tank more than 10 Taloses. Seriously, I wonder which stupidity you are talking about...

    On the killboard, I see Bowheads dying against 10 Taloses/Nagas/Bombers if they are not fitted correctly or against 26 people (which is too many people as the killmail shows no capsule of any ganker ship) if they are fitted correctly. I don't see a problem having to use at least 10 characters to engage in a criminal activity against an otherwise defenseless targets, especially since all competent ganker groups, the OP's included, have more than enough characters ready every time they gank.

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

    The longer effect duration compared to cycle time is on purpose because (quote Fozzie) "renewing existing effects is less calculation intensive for the server than starting new effects".

  • Entosis Capture event to 24h in EVE Technology and Research Center

    A full day of entosising for one structure? I cannot imagine a more fun and fulfilling activity than sitting in space with my magic space wand for a full day.

  • June release - Issues in EVE Information Center

    For reasons that I don't understand you have changed the brightness of background nebulae, the Domain nebula in particular. Looking up to the nebula now basically throws several suns worth of brightness into your eyes and makes the UI completely unreadable.

    And you still have not fixed the problem with the CEO replacement of the Emperor Family NPC corporation.

  • Jump freighters in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Conflict. I have not heard a better joke in a while, but maybe we have different definitions of the word. When was the last time that a major null sec holding alliance had to defend their towers?

    That aside and to your response from the 20th to my post as well as your latest response: This interaction will work marvelously if your major means of transportation can only travel small jumps, the next best thing is too small to transport sufficient quantities and the worst thing to transport sufficient quantities is impossible to defend on the trek because we are supposed to blow ourselves up. Not to mention that CCP has created such wonderful tools to actually allow people to trade with each other efficiently and without running the constant risk of getting screwed over by either party and as result being left behind with nothing but a blown up oil tanker like the one recently in Pakistan. A truly marvelous and enjoyable situation ... Oh wait, I am talking about another game. My bad.

    Furthermore, please tell me where I wrote something about a buff to JFs. I would be intrigued to see this piece of text. As far as I can tell I only said that replacing the status quo with even more utterly annoying tedium will have adverse effects on the big comfy coffin. If you want a hand with the metal pot, let me know. Roll
    The other issues I agree with, but that's CCP fault. One day, they want everyone in the big toys and break the game to enable that (carrier rebalance with ridiculous DPS and and fancy focus on active gameplay). The other day they find that things progress too quickly and get out of hand and fail to fix things back to normal. That is because of their stupid approach of giving the players stupidly OP toys to have fun with and then murder them back down to normal after players have been having too much fun with them for months/years, which in turn makes the players rage over the nerfs. Same goes for mining.

  • Jump freighters in EVE Technology and Research Center

    SurrenderMonkey wrote:
    Serendipity Lost wrote:
    Came here hoping for a 'remove JF from the game thread' .... sigh

    I wouldn't mind seeing their fatigue reduction removed, at least.

    Only if CCP gets rid of that useless moon mineral and ore distribution differences so that you can actually live without having to import goo/goo products and ore from other places. If that's not met, both of your contributions hit a very big nail into the nullsec coffin.

  • Rorquals and Excavators. Also Asteroid Anomalies. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Nevyn Auscent wrote:
    Belts massively favour people who log in just after DT.

    Not if you keep the current mechanic of timed spawns/replenishment of anoms. Belts don't need to replenish at DT, they can be replenished procedurally over time.

  • Rorquals and Excavators. Also Asteroid Anomalies. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mining anomalies need to go completely. They serve no justifiable function. The Ihub upgrades generating the anomalies now should instead increase quality and number of rocks in the standard belts. In addition, mining signatures should come back, which spawn rarely in random systems and are much like the current mining anomalies with potentially increased yield.

    This removes clutter from the probe scanner, make systems with lots of belts just as desirable (hide in the number of belts) as systems with few belts (a lot of good rocks in few places) and it also makes mining as well as hunting miners more predictable.

  • Would having a PvP arena help remove stuff from the game? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Old Pervert wrote:
    I also do not want a "fair" fight... I know I did say fair, but I most certainly misspoke. I want an uninterrupted fight. I don't want some yahoo interrupting my experience for his own enjoyment. That is how Eve works, and I don't object to that, but given the option of a "you're on your own, you better know how to fight a real fight", I'd take that over "lol light the cyno!" any day.
    If alpha accounts are indeed being used for griefing, ban alpha accounts from the arenas. They'll get the same pvp experience outside of arenas post-arena as they would now.

    If the fights are not fair, the arena won't work. In an arena system, you can't randomly pit 1 guy in a frigate against 3 guys in frigates. That's not how arena systems work. This means that you have to have at the very least equal numbers of characters in the arena, be it 1v1 or 3v3 or 5v5, if you do not wanted to have additional rules that resemble other arena style games. Under your suggestion, I suppose that you cannot chose to limit fights against a certain ship class, SP count, ship cost, account type, account age? That will leave tons of room for exploitation and very enjoyable PVP experiences.

    And here we go: You want to ban those accounts from participating in the activity that is supposed to entertain them and keep them in the game because more experienced players know how to play the rules.

  • Would having a PvP arena help remove stuff from the game? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    First: Arenas are not more content. They take content out of the game by focusing the majority of PVP to these arenas and not where it belongs: in the open world. If people want more content, they can set out and look for it and by that create it. That is what EVE is about. Players create their own content.

    Real PVP experience in alpha ships can win against any alpha or omega pilot that does not have the same insights. ... Unless, of course, if you pit say 3 T1 frigates against 3 T2 cruisers. Unless your fight setups are not inherently unfair, a pilot or group of pilots with proper experience can easily win against a pilot/group in the same ships with less experience. I am also not talking about an alpha alpha pilot; I am talking about alpha alts of experienced omega pilots, setup into tricking the system and opponents. You cannot have a fair fight most of the time because you cannot exclude experience from a fight. As countless of videos from experienced PVPers show: experience can dismantle even larger counter forces unless they unpack the capital hammer. And even that does not guarantee a victory over the more experienced group as I have recently found out in a fight against a WH group. 10 of them ridiculed our 30 BS/capitals with ease. The very same thing is unavoidable in arenas and is very detrimental to "fun" when you expect fair fights.

    To a person who is not good at PVP, arenas are just as good as missions teaching them about PVP: they learn things in an artificial environment with a limited rule set and scenarios. The open world, however, does not work by these rules, as your remarks about getting blobbed by bigger groups all the time show. In an arena, you do not learn about reading the unpredictability of a battlefield because nothing unpredictable can happen. You do not learn about paying attention to changing conditions on a battlefield, about people leaving and coming in or warping around.
    You teach players some crude basics, which will be dismantled the first or second time they try PVP outside arenas -- granted that they find anything to PVP against in the first place --, which will in turn drive them back to arenas and remove even more content from the actual game.

    You know that this is a very time intensive approach, right? Especially arguing about the fine details of PVP. Keeping at range from someone is a basic principle in PVP. Determining if someone's griefing just by the fact that they simply ran around and occasionally or continuously kept dampening or jamming the opponent, while other people of their team regularly run small attacks. Regardless of what the GM finds, it's time consuming and unsustainable if this happens hundreds of times per day (CFC or PL or other big bored groups will do that repeatedly, that is guaranteed). And then the problem with inconsequential bans on alpha accounts removes any significance from that tool, too.

  • Would having a PvP arena help remove stuff from the game? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Farming people mindlessly warping into a tackled target is fun. Farming people running home headlessly to "form" is fun, too.

    Yes, I mean stuck in arenas and thus taken out of the game for any roamer to engage/intercept/farm/destroy. Yes, stuck in arenas not defending their ratters, which means they will dock up/tether up and are unavailable for a fight. Even Rorqs can be quickly un-cored and tethered up since intel semi-bots provide the necessary info way in advance. Yes, stuck in arenas and deserting the already existing arenas (called star systems, anomalies, missions, signatures, etc) because they are unfair and unpredictable.

    CCP's profit margins say that. And that such a feature attracts more players is highly questionable. If we take the Free to Play mode as example, it is already clearly visible that this does not yield sustainable increase in active characters per day. According to TQ is almost back to pre-Alpha numbers in terms of active characters per day. I fail to see how a feature that guarantees you getting farmed by more experienced players (that is an undeniable fact, considering how many people post ideas for PVE safe zones, PVP safe zones and so on in this forum) in a setting that gives you the illusion of a "fair fight" because of tighter rules. That sounds very entertaining and results in the same failing sustainable player growth and retention.
    Not to mention that you do not need a paying account for arenas. You can now just have alpha account after alpha account to get free PVP chars.

    I only partially implied active monitoring of the arenas themselves. However, they need to monitor an increased amount of tickets requiring immediate action as the arena fights are "short lived". So, more work for the same number or potentially more GMs but not necessarily more money and players for CCP. Not to mention that griefing in PVP is quite difficult to determine. How is a guy running circles around you griefing in arenas when it is not in the open world? How long is too long for protracting a fight? Not to mention that banning does not really mean anything with alpha accounts.

    I may or may not go too much into detail with finding issues, as always, but I do not see arenas as a viable and valuable addition to a game that lives from making someone's day a bit more miserable. I only outlined a couple of exampled of the bucket of worms how players will exploit the rules to their advantage and make the "fun PVP" arena experience a lot less fun for many people.

  • Would having a PvP arena help remove stuff from the game? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Yes, this is fun. But arenas turn that into no fun because these targets will be even farther and wider in between as PVPers are rather stuck in your hours long arenas than in their systems ready for a fight.

    Needing ISK means indeed ratting, but that does not mean being a target to any roamers after arenas. Simply because people are not willing to fight any more in unfair, unpredictabe fights and they are stuck in the arenas, remember. Their ratters will just warp off if they are half-way competent.

    No, I understood that right away, which is why I brought it up. Setting up an entire region of low sec space just so that such an arena.
    You mean the GMs that are already overworked and unmotivated to work on tickets of low priority and still have long processing time on higher priority tickets? The same limited number of GMs that need to monitor the forums, mission screw ups, industry screw ups, market screw ups and so on and so forth now also need to monitor thousands of arena fights daily?

    Arenas sound better and better, the more I think about them.

Forum Signature

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.