These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 2007-07-04 01:10
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-06-18 00:44
  • Number of Posts: 391
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Thead Enco

Security Status 5.0
  • Thunderwaffe Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rhivre wrote:
    What percentage of characters earning bounties were living in HS exclusively. For the purposes of this discussion, the only relevant numbers are characters earning bounties in nullsec.

    Also, why those specific 5 days, why not use the last year?


    Because they want to cherry pick outliers to fit their narrative.

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Stunt wrote:
    This still does not address the core issue of pve being safe and lack of content mechanics.
    Safe in Delve?


  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    "Just under half (46.5%) of the bounties earned during the time period was generated by Supercarriers and Carriers, meaning a small percent of the population received a huge portion of the total bounties."

    You should of thought of capital proliferation when your were implementing skill injectors. Oh wait you did, you hired the EA marketing team.

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    "We are working on changes to Anomalies that will reduce the effectiveness of Carriers and Supercarriers. These changes will be announced at a later date."

    Good luck with that

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    She11by wrote:
    So basically you are forcing people to WORK in EVE not PLAY it.

    P.S.
    In pvp, carriers and motherships are already 100% useless to any ship with AB or low signature, and we are not even talking about 3-5 fragile downgraded drones that are called ' squads '


    And buy more PLEX to supplement your income.

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sam Khanid wrote:
    Thead Enco wrote:
    Ayel T'khane wrote:
    Nerfing the biggest and most powerful ships in new eden to fix the economy ?! Carriers and Supers OP ?! making good money ?! CCP do you have any idea how risky it is to undock those god damn gank magnets ?!

    you have been developing this game since 2003 and now after all the experience nerfing is the only thing you can think of ? how about you FIX IT BY CHANGING HOW THE F*** ECONOMY WORKS IN THE FIRST PLACE ?!!!


    If only CCP replaced their economist that left to be a dean of a university, oh wait they did they hired someone from EA to oversee marketing....


    Did they really? EA kills every game that's unlucky enough to fall into their hands...!


    Yeap,

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ayel T'khane wrote:
    Nerfing the biggest and most powerful ships in new eden to fix the economy ?! Carriers and Supers OP ?! making good money ?! CCP do you have any idea how risky it is to undock those god damn gank magnets ?!

    you have been developing this game since 2003 and now after all the experience nerfing is the only thing you can think of ? how about you FIX IT BY CHANGING HOW THE F*** ECONOMY WORKS IN THE FIRST PLACE ?!!!


    If only CCP replaced their economist that left to be a dean of a university, oh wait they did they hired someone from EA to oversee marketing....

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    [img]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/71813/1/GermanFlag33.png[/img]  [img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/FLAG_-_RUSSIAN-33.png[/img]

    Hi Space Friends,
    Coming with our release on Tuesday, we’re significantly reducing the damage output of Fighters.

    Why:
    We are making this change because Carriers & Supercarriers are too strong in PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec. As you may have seen in the May Monthly Economy Report, there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is primarily due to NPC Bounties.

    This trend is unsustainable. Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players.

    We also think that Carriers and Supercarriers are a bit too effective in PvP now. This change will significantly change the PvP balance, but we’re confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP.

    What:
    • Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
    • Light Fighters (Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage.
    • Support Fighters: No Change
    • Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage.
    • Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage.
    • Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
    • NPCs are 15% more likely to shoot at fighters than they are currently.


    We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players.


    This is how CCP really feels about the their playerbase

    PSA a supercap certainly does not make 700mil an hr and anyone who claims is mentally ********. You would chain the first set of anoms too fast for them to respawn even with ADM 6. CCP Do you even play this game? Also you can't fricking multibox 17 carriers or supers with the new drone UI. and since imput broadcasting is banned on Isboxer it is impossible.

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    "This trend is unsustainable. Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players."


    No one plays this god awful game anymore, what the hell are you talking about? So having less subs paying subscription is "sustainable" for a subscription based model in the year 2017? Ok that's some Bernie math there....2011 wants your business model back....

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    [img]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/71813/1/GermanFlag33.png[/img]  [img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/FLAG_-_RUSSIAN-33.png[/img]

    Hi Space Friends,
    Coming with our release on Tuesday, we’re significantly reducing the damage output of Fighters.

    Why:
    We are making this change because Carriers & Supercarriers are too strong in PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec. As you may have seen in the May Monthly Economy Report, there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is primarily due to NPC Bounties.

    This trend is unsustainable. Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players.

    We also think that Carriers and Supercarriers are a bit too effective in PvP now. This change will significantly change the PvP balance, but we’re confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP.

    What:
    • Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
    • Light Fighters (Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage.
    • Support Fighters: No Change
    • Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage.
    • Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage.
    • Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
    • NPCs are 15% more likely to shoot at fighters than they are currently.


    We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players.



    Grayscale?

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    JonasML wrote:
    Abadayos wrote:
    So first off, we get OP Rorqs...no-one is shocked when they get nerfed, we are irritated they get nerfed again but then pretty much spit in CCPs face and mine up almost 7 TRILLION value in Delve. Another nerf was honestly expected after seeing those numbers. That's not great, but ok cool, we will adapt, just adding more accounts etc.

    The main issue I have here, along with most other people around it seems, is the timers on belts.

    Here is my concern: With the introduction of Citadels and EC's, people have set up 'home systems' within their corps and alliances where they have got their EC production backbone set up investing up to 100+ billion on structures to build capitals, supers, titans and whatever else they want. This was encouraged by CCP. We did it safe in the knowledge that we could undck, warp to an anom (be it Ratting or Mining) and pretty much stay local, maybe having to move to a surrounding system if our home got busy or a WH popped up. That's fine, normal and expected.

    Now what we have in 100's of billions invested in static infrastructure that realistically cannot be moved (loose rigs..and screw that!) and now out of the blue we get timered ore anoms roughly 6 months after EC's got put in, enough time to get Sotiyos, Azbels etc set up, running and all happy dappy. Granted Rorqs have a very large jump range (10ly if your serious about using them) and yes you can jump to a nice medium EC/Citadel as a waypoint for tether and be pretty much 100% safe, unless you bounce or screw up.

    Now that is fine for the old guys in Null, they can fly a rorq, they can jump, they can do whatever. It's the newbros we have to worry about now. They can indeed store their barges/exhumers in a rorq and have it jumped and jump into a ceptor and fly over, but would that make mining 'fun' for them? Spending a decent percentage of their tme moving around to ge the dregs the Rorqs leave behind for them, or being relegated to Mercoxite miners and nothing more?

    Now here is the final kicker that actually annoys me about the respawn timers:

    I'm an Aussie, the time between EU and US is my prime time. Hey guess what? Both have eaten the collosal belt..I only have 2 hours to play and wanted to get 30-60 minutes mining in before a strat op or whatever...guess what I can't do now? Yep...mine. I mean I COULD mine..but I would have ot spend 20 minutes on an alt in a ceptor trying to find a belt worth jumping to (fuel cost to jump whilst tiny, adds up if your only mining for a short time span before having to stop/log) or just settling on a small or medium belt that would just add low ends to my stockpile when I already have billions and billions of that crap in the hangers that I simply can't use.



    Here is something of a minor solution: Fix the consumption amounts for capital/super/titan ships and their components to use more low ends maybe? Or change the split of Null ore anoms to have less of the low ends and more of the mid/high ends to promote importing for HS (which I would have but what can you do, got to meet on the middle ground, right?) This way we could have the ore anoms around without a timer and the low end market doesn't go the way of the dodo. Maybe even gut the respawn timer to 50% of what it is. 2.5 hours for a collosal, whilst a kick in the nuts, is painfully acceptable.

    Another solution is to have more random ore anoms pop up like the 'Small Bistot/Arkanor Deposite' that needs to be scanned out (or just how they are now, just more often spawn) This would let people do some mining when the big statics are gone and lets people in barges/exhumers grab some high ends that are always cherry picked down in Delve by the big guys (I'm sure cherry picked all over the place as well). This would balance out the 'awwww hell....no anoms worth mining and I only have an hour to play/mine and I REALLY don't want to to asteroid belt mining cos they pop so damned fast' situations. It would also encorage a mini profession of prospect miners (not the ship the prospect, but the activity of prospecting systems for 'gold)

    Sad thing is people, CCP isn't gothing to bother changing this as it's coming out on the 13th or something like that. They are in panic damage control mode and our elected CSM seem to of been able to do diddly squat for out interests as CCP seems top of ignored them too...I feel sorry for those guys and gals, I really do (the CSM)


    The bottleneck is the damn mexallon. Rebalance of the ores would mean that we stop having to dump a ton of trit and pyer onto the highsec market as scrap from all the spud we need to mine for our mex.

    If the CSM weren't bound by their NDA, they probably would have told us about this sooner, and we'd see how much they complain about it. How about letting the CSM comment on changes somewhere on the forum without getting clubbed to death with the NDA?
    Yeap, People always follow the NDA



  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Imiarr Timshae wrote:
    It still staggers me how much CCP is willing to push Eve as a "sandbox" while punishing player behaviour in that sandbox.


    Someone has to set up the sandbox. CCP sets the values, CCP gets to tweak them when they're causing problems. Just because something is a sandbox does not mean that it's a completely unregulated no-rules free for all. It's a "Sandbox Game" and a Game has rules.

    Sgt Ocker wrote:

    One question though (which I know won't get answered) Is the 9% yield nerf including the 12.5% speed nerf or are they individual nerfs to make it a really major nerf to drone mining?
    More Travel time = less yield
    So;
    9% reduction in yield + 12.5% reduction in speed = A bloody big nerf.


    Has already been answered by the changes on the test server (and the fact that those were two separate lines)

    The 9% reduction in yield is independent, completely, of the speed reduction. Also the speed reduction will not result in a flat change in yield, it all depends on the size of the rock and where the drones end up when the end their cycle.


    Hi Fozzie Big smile

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    New mining nerfs are on SISI

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Roci Nantes wrote:
    My limited mining window means it's time to go back to pewpewing rats for the iskies. Just need to mine as hard as I can till this happens. It's sad cause I liked my rorq. I can let that toon go alpha though since that's all it flys.


    Confirming July changes to all faction Null Sec Combat sites with Military ADM LVL 5:


    Sanctums will have a 3 hour respawn rate

    Havens will have a 1 Hour respawn rate

    Forlorn Hubs will have a 30 min respawn rate

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dirk MacGirk wrote:
    Shurdo wrote:



    Maybe CCP should apply the same principle to ratting anoms as they are proposing for the mining anoms. That should provide a more balanced playing field.


    We've made that case as well. If you beat the hell out of a pirate faction 24/7, why do they not learn to move or not come back as quickly. Ratting shouldn't be immune to over farming, but we do have to be careful that we don't go too far and chip away at the changes that encouraged higher player density because those did have a purpose within the grand scheme of sov nullsec. I'm not sure that timers are the trick in that case, but I do think CCP hasn't pulled the levers they have on ISK faucets the way they have on resource faucets.


    So it's 2011 again at CCP and they intend to drive more people to buy plex vs. earning in game?

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Hy Wanto Destroyer wrote:
    Do you understand the impact this will have on lowsec?

    Most of the larger lowsec alliance rely on passive moon income and have less isk making opportunities on an alliance level than nullsec allainces which was outlined on some reddit posts made during the leaks and an article on crossing zebra,

    No one in lowsec is gonna mine so rip lowsec????


    Yea, AFKSec is still a go since those same people will still be waiting for their super spawns.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:


    And that's just what we can extrapolate from publicly available data. Given Fozzie's comments in this thread it seems like most people are using Rorquals like they're at practically no risk at all. This shows in how big of a deal people are making out of the tiny risk imposed by the changes to PANIC activation.


    NO killboards ISD Max Trix

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far!

    I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes:

    There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:
    1. The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets.
    2. The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets.
    3. The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack.

    Use case #1 is the one that we've heard the most concern about from players and the one that many people have been suggesting alternate fixes for in this thread. However use case #3 is probably the most important one to study to help identify the best possible solution to all three problems.
    In the context of use case #3, simultaneous use of the PANIC module and entosis link isn't the problem as that is already disallowed. You can't activate the entosis link while the PANIC module is running and activating the PANIC module breaks the entosis connection and halts the capture progress. However even with these restrictions the sequential use of entosis links and the PANIC module can be very powerful. A Rorqual can start capturing the node and only activate PANIC if it comes under too much fire to tank normally. Then the PANIC module provides the time needed for a reinforcement fleet to arrive at the command node and drive off the attackers. In this case the issue isn't that the PANIC module can be used at the same time as the entosis link, but that the Rorqual can use the entosis link and keep the PANIC module as a "get out of jail free" option as needed.

    Keeping the three troublesome use cases above in mind, there are three core reasons we were attracted to the idea of approaching the problem with a situational PANIC activation restriction rather than through a similar restriction to what we already use with triage and the networked sensor array. I'll list them below in order from least important to most important:
    • There's value in trying to reach the same goal through a smaller number of rules that players will have to remember. Three separate rules (one for ewar, one for cynos and one for entosis) could probably be used to solve these problems but if we have an opportunity to reach the same goal with fewer exceptions we'll generally prefer the single rule.
    • If possible, we would like to preserve the use of both cynos and ewar by mining Rorquals while they are defending their fleet with the PANIC module. Cynos serve a valuable purpose in helping them get support fleets to their position, and ewar helps them present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period.
    • Most importantly, we were concerned that if we tried to solve the tackle and cyno use cases by restricting those functions while the PANIC module is running (similarly to how ewar is restricted while triage is active) or even by removing the ability to lock targets while the PANIC module is active, we would simply shift the problem into something more similar to what we're seeing with entosis right now. Although such restrictions would prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing with PANIC active, it would not prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing and then saving the PANIC activation as a "get out of jail free" card in case they come under too much fire. Considering the fact that people have the option of using multiple Rorquals and that even threatening a Rorqual's tank requires a fair amount of DPS to start with, this end result would be only a slight improvement on the current situation.

    As for the reasoning for this proposal including a target lock restriction instead of a proximity check, the main motivation is to avoid the server load associated with large area proximity checks. For people concerned about jams and damps, remember that the Industrial core provides 100% ecm resistance and 75-80% damp resistance while active. This proposal does mean that Rorquals will be more vulnerable after finishing the last rock in a belt and while moving, but our current impression is that those limited periods of extra vulnerability have the potential to generate interesting gameplay. It’s also worth remembering that the Rorqual has a very significant set of defenses even without the PANIC module.
    We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one.


    TLDR; Instead of recreating the god damn wheel just change the values on offensive mods so you can't fit them on the Rorqual in the first place.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback.

    PANIC Module:
    We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations.
    To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change:
    [list]
  • Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.

Why not just change values on tackle mods so you can't fit them on the Rorq in the first place. This change is a half ass attempt.

  • Singularity: Requests for account reactivation in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Please reactivate Thead Enco and Kobal81 on sisi tia.