These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 2007-12-07 08:26
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-06 18:02
  • Number of Posts: 4,616
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Zhilia Mann

Security Status 0.0
  • Tide Way Out Productions Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Do T2 Fury Cruise need a Target Painter against BS rats? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Simple question without a simple answer. Usually yes, you need a painter for absolutely full damage. However, if you have perfect application skills and an application-bonused ship, no. Likewise if you fit for application with rigors or missile guidance mods, maybes not. Also, Guristas tend to have a larger sig, so maybe not then either.

    So... maybe?

  • Why no x-type medium armor repairers? in EVE Communication Center

    There are no X-type cruiser-categorized modules period. That includes MARs, MSBs, invulns, EANMs, resistance amps, etc. Unless we add something like 6.5/10s there won't be either.

    I frankly don't see what the issue is. A-type MARs are great.

  • why so low dps? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Katarr Ne'asirr wrote:
    Nerdz Rool wrote:
    Katarr Ne'asirr wrote:
    Kosoku wrote:
    The answers you are looking for are in game. You just need to browse through ships and guns and then do some simple math.


    I never rated before and rats modules are random. I dont have possibility for doing it. Only someone that does might know the awnser.


    As I said I am more than willing to provide more assistance than everything im typing here. Just let me know if you have any more questions, we'll get them sorted.


    in other words a paladin with pulse lasers would stand for instance a blood haven
    for instance with 2 deadspace armor repairers


    That would be dramatic overkill on tank. A single T2 rep would suffice.

  • Raitaru setup in EVE Gameplay Center

    This has lots of solid details, though maybe not all the ones you need:

    https://english.eve-guides.fr/index.php?article=132

  • bowhead or charon? in EVE Gameplay Center

    How many ships are you trying to move? You can fit an assembled battleship in the Charon if you contract it to yourself (requires an alt, which is dumb).

  • I need help with my fit in EVE Gameplay Center

    If, god forbid, someone does run across this thread wanting to run L3s in a Gallente BS, this might work better:

    [Megathron, L3]

    Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
    Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
    Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
    Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
    Tracking Enhancer II
    Tracking Enhancer II
    Tracking Enhancer II
    Inertial Stabilizers II

    Large Micro Jump Drive
    Large Shield Extender II
    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    Sensor Booster II

    425mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L
    425mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L
    425mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L
    425mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L
    425mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L
    425mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L
    425mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L

    Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
    Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
    Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II

    Note that it has the proper number of high slots, has a better range tank, is NOT cap stable with antimatter but should be fine anyhow, can script the sebo to target further or lock faster, and travels rather well. Because it can instantly get to 100km range it needs hardly any tank.

    This is NOT a typical L4 fit. This is NOT an ideal L3 ship, even as battleships go. However, it's an improvement.

    There should be plenty of room to downgrade everything for fitting skills. T2 guns stress the CPU.

  • Probe scanner interface is a mess in EVE Technology and Research Center

    grgjegb gergerg wrote:
    Yeah, that's a bit much. You know that, though.


    I'm more serious than you think. OP seems to think that probing is an arbitrary barrier to content. I want it to BE content.

    For the record, no, I don't like the current interface. That doesn't seem to be a big part of the discussion one way or the other though.

    grgjegb gergerg wrote:
    How about this: make ship placement matter for scanning. Currently, you just park at a random Citadel, or cloak anywhere, after you drop probes. Your ship location has zero effect on probe results.

    What if it did?

    This would mean that when you are scanning near a planet, you would probably warp near the planet. This would get you scan times and probe stats at current values. (Since most things spawn near-ish planets, it would be more or less convenient.)

    BUT- if you throw probes across the system, the time lag and communication distance causes slower and less accurate results.

    One new ability would be nice, though: the ability to warp in the general vicinity of a result, so that you can get somewhat near the result. Or even the ability to warp to probes. (Yes, I know people would use it for safespots, the warp should only work if you're in a reasonable area inside the system.)

    This should probably be more pronounced for tighter probing, so that people can do a system-wide scan from anywhere with the same accuracy and speed as now, but when they start to tighten down, they have to warp approximately near the result they're going for.

    This would make probing take a little longer, with the warping, so it would be reasonable to make the scans just a little shorter, probably. Keep total times about the same.


    I could live with this. It adds something back to a pretty lame system. If we could couple it with removing signatures before an initial scan I'd be great with it.

  • Probe scanner interface is a mess in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mangcho Ngai-Lam wrote:
    How much more of a genuine challenge is it to wait for 20 extra seconds for the game to grant you access, rather than actually use skill, reflexes, and critical thinking to progress? You're claiming the only way to balance a more intuitive interface would be to prolong the amount of time it takes to get a 100% anomaly signal. In other words, you think if the interface is actually intuitive, it needs to be balanced by making it inconvenient in a different way, by waiting an extra 10 seconds, as if sitting there, not actually doing anything, is a good way to restrict access to parts of the map.

    This isn't good game design. This is restricting access based on the amount of time the player is willing to invest, rather than actual player skill. If scanning a system is meant to be a low-skill operation, compared to the encounters within the anomalies themselves, why make it so convoluted? Why not make the gameplay within the anomalies the actual focus, instead of the busywork and pointless waiting it takes to get there?


    Alright, **** it, since you brought up this line of reasoning first: no. Let's not restrict access based on time. Hell, let's not restrict it based on whether any idiot can click the red dot. Let's go ahead and make probing harder. Much harder. Much, much harder.

    Have accuracy increase proportional to number of probes launched, but also increase deviation for each additional probe launched. Increase base deviation by several orders of magnitude. Shrink signature size by several orders of magnitude.

    Require scanning implants, not just perfect skills and a tricked out ship, to find the hardest signatures. Make absolutely sure that with the skill set available to maxed alphas, they can just barely pin a K162.

    Remove probe formations. Obviously.

    Equally obviously, remove any indication an unprobed signature is out there for you to pin down. Maybe reintroduce DSPs; maybe not even make it that simple!

    Introduce random variation to each scan. Not enough to really help someone hit a site they couldn't get before, but enough to make someone question whether they jiggled their probes -- each one individually! -- the right way or not.

    Oh, and obviously remove escalations from anoms from the game.

    That's a probing system.

    (Oh, and just to really kick everything: probe launchers will not require two high slots. Because that makes exactly as much sense as zero does.)

  • Shield module questions.. in EVE Gameplay Center

    General rule of thumb: unless you can fit oversized buffer and still have room for SPRs in the lows and purgers in the rigs you're better off active tanking. That more or less precludes battleships from passive tanks (except for maybe a Rattlesnake). Even when you think you CAN give up lows/rigs, there are often better options (damage, application) when running missions.

    About the only time I seriously consider a fully passive fit these days are when I know I'm going to face exceptional neuting (which is to say, Serpentis 6/10). A buffer fit with some recharge can be adequate, but you have to know how much damage you can mitigate and how much is too much.

  • Probe scanner interface is a mess in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I'm going to refrain from real comment on the current probing system. I personally liked the era of DSPs but that's neither here nor there. It appears we're going down the road of reducing the value of experience and practice, which sucks, but we might as well embrace it I guess.

    However: no, you can't have a free high slot. This is the second topic on the first page to suggest a free module and it remains a horrible idea. If you find yourself with too few high slots, then either get a different ship for the job or accept the limitation. It's seriously that simple. Ships aren't meant to be able to do everything all the time. Probing is one small option. Want to do it? Fit for it! Does it limit other options? Well, yeah, no ****!

    At least the half of the idea where you want probing to be easy enough for my puppy to do it isn't entirely brain dead. Asking for a free high absolutely is.

  • Rupture pve fit question in EVE Gameplay Center

    Kalahira Sarlain wrote:

    * shield fit :
    - Hadn't thought about using both LSE and the AIF together. Three Purgers though, isn't that too much tank for pve ? What about the weapon rigs, are their benefits marginal ?


    Always, always fit resists instead of just buffer/rep.

    As a general rule, T1 weapons rigs are slightly worse than their corresponding modules and are stacking penalized. There are times to use them, but rigging is usually better used for fitting, tank, or some other intangible.

    Purgers, please note, are not stacking penalized. So fitting several of them has a synergistic effect. Same goes for shield power relays.

    As for tank numbers: what are you trying to do? The shield fit I posted puts out 115 ehp/s at peak recharge. A T2 version of the one you posted pushes 58.7 ehp/s at peak recharge. So yes, I get twice the tank. Either should be fine for L2s, but I know which one I'd prefer in a 4/10 or L3 for sure.

    Kalahira Sarlain wrote:
    * armor fit :
    - Osmium says MAAR is more cap friendly than normal MAR : that not true ?
    - Are you saying armor plates are useless in practice ?
    - What about one Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane and one tracking enhancer instead of the two hardeners ?
    - Three whole rigs and one high required to make the fitting work, in both cases : that speaks in favor of the shield fit, right ? Since you're losing on attack with all this
    - TY for the scrips tip


    MAARs are more cap friendly as long as your paste lasts. Without paste, they're actually pretty inefficient, and the reload time is long (during which of course you're not repping anything at all). Except in some narrow circumstances I wouldn't want to take an AAR for PvE.

    Plates are useful for buffer. However, you're really looking for sustained tank numbers in PvE. Extra buffer just means you can stick around and take a bit longer to die once your tank is overwhelmed. That's not really useful.

    EANM/TE is going to push less tank than two mission-specific hardeners (note that you really oughtn't be using kin/therm for anything but Serpentis and Guristas; you'd swap those out as needed). Remember that the TE is stacking penalized against the TCs so it might not be the best option. If you're *really* into the EANM idea you could argue for a damage control over a TE pretty easily. I could also argue for a third gyro. Ultimately it depends on how much tank you need, which depends on what you're doing.

    You're really only using two rig slots to make the armor fit work (the ACRs to be specific). The SMC is there just to give some additional cap buffer that you don't strictly need.

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

    Cade Windstalker wrote:

    It's like saying it's a good idea to pick up your fish bowl and shake it because you're *pretty sure* the fish won't die, and hey he might enjoy it...


    More like it *might* make him a super-awesome uberfish, will most likely kill him, and has a good chance of getting water ******* everywhere either way.

    It may not seem like it at first, but this is seriously one of those "why don't we have realistic physics"-level ideas that might as well be a different game entirely.

  • Rupture pve fit question in EVE Gameplay Center

    These aren't bad starts. They aren't quite right either.

    Here are the two fits I tossed together. They aren't alpha-friendly, but can easily be downgraded to make them so.

    [Rupture, pve shield]

    Gyrostabilizer II
    Gyrostabilizer II
    Shield Power Relay II
    Tracking Enhancer II
    Tracking Enhancer II

    10MN Afterburner II
    Large Shield Extender II
    Large Shield Extender II
    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    [Empty High slot]

    Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
    Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
    Medium Core Defense Field Purger I

    [Rupture, pve armor]

    Gyrostabilizer II
    Gyrostabilizer II
    Medium Armor Repairer II
    Armor Kinetic Hardener II
    Armor Thermal Hardener II

    10MN Afterburner II
    Large Compact Pb-Acid Cap Battery
    Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
    Tracking Computer II

    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    [Empty High slot]

    Medium Ancillary Current Router I
    Medium Ancillary Current Router I
    Medium Semiconductor Memory Cell I

    So let's go point by point and look at what I did versus what you did.

    For shield, you're lacking all resists. Swapping the TC for an invuln increases the tank dramatically as less damage will get through period. Changing the lows around to add another TE also allows me to dedicate rigs to tank. If you're going to go passive shield, purgers are absolutely the way to get your tank numbers up (they directly decrease recharge time, so more shield recharges each second). For the fifth low I went with a shield power relay; a damage control is totally valid here too. The relay gives better peak tank while the damage control gives more buffer in case you need to split. I'm comfortable enough flying a passive tank that I'd rather strengthen that.

    You had the right idea. The major takeaway here is that you really need to invest in your resists.

    For armor: not so much.

    The plate/MAAR setup just.... doesn't really work. MAARs are fine if you only need to burst tank, but I'm pretty sure you're going to be running yours for sustained periods. Just go with a normal MAR.

    The plate... well, you never want to have to need it. The whole idea is that either you can rep enough to stay or you get out. It's also putting major undue strain on your powergrid.

    In the mids: well, batteries are interesting. You'll observe that I used a large and you used a medium. You get FAR more benefit out of the large. However, this puts strain on powergrid again, so I need ACRs as well. It's fully stable running a T2 MAR with the large battery though. The SMC is just... there.

    Instead of cap buffer you could instead look at recharge, like so:

    [Rupture, pve armor no battery]

    Gyrostabilizer II
    Gyrostabilizer II
    Medium Armor Repairer II
    Armor Kinetic Hardener II
    Armor Thermal Hardener II

    10MN Afterburner II
    Cap Recharger II
    Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
    Tracking Computer II

    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    650mm Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
    [Empty High slot]

    Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
    Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
    Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I

    This lasts 11.5 minutes (my skills). That should be sufficient. No fitting problems either.

    Finally a note on tracking computers. There's literally no instance where you'd want both unscripted. Under those circumstances, both TCs are providing two equal bonuses to the same stats, which brings stacking penalties into full effect. You should see about 8.7% better performance across the board if you script them oppositely. If you want more detail on that I can walk you through it. As you can see, I like having a range script and a no script to get a somewhat better increase to range while still picking up tracking. That's a personal preference though; I like to adjust tracking with piloting as much as possible.

    Let loose any questions. I can go into much more detail on just about anything.

  • Project Discovery / Sisters of Eve Questions in EVE Gameplay Center

    Shin Dahn wrote:
    Greetings,
    I did a search on this but did not find much. I might be missing a sticky but the info seemed limited.

    I am really interested in the Project Discovery Planet Hunter mission / mini-game coming to Sisters of Eve.

    Anyone know when this is being released?


    July 11.

    Shin Dahn wrote:
    Do you need a paid account to participate?


    Alphas should be fine.

    Shin Dahn wrote:
    Any requirements to standings for getting the missions / mini-game from Sisters of Eve?


    Shouldn't be. There certainly aren't for the cell samples.

    Shin Dahn wrote:
    Thanks!


    If you want a much more extensive rundown as to what you're in for, check here. It actually looks rather good.

  • WTF loot table CCP ? in EVE Gameplay Center

    For what it's worth, Serpentis Annex in particular is a little annoying as it actually requires that you burn a relatively expensive tag. Still shouldn't have been 90 minutes, mind.

    I run annexes for powergrids. Powergrids are easy and give several roles on the loot table (which, by the by, includes high grade implants). I also like the wandering aspect; if I have time I scan every system I pass through and often get 5/10s or 6/10s on the way and end up in systems I normally wouldn't visit. Kind of relaxing. But I guess that means I actually like the exploration aspect.

  • WTF loot table CCP ? in EVE Gameplay Center

    It happens. Annexes, regardless of rat type, can have huge payouts or virtually nothing. If one is lucky an annex will escalate to powergrid, which providing it keeps escalating to the final site has a guaranteed battleship C-type payout. But you're not guaranteed the escalation.

    When I run an unrated site I expect ammo. Anything else is just icing.

  • Concord ships, bonus application? in EVE Gameplay Center

    So you're using a Gistum C-type, yes?

    There are two reasonable possibilities here. First , you're actually reading a different stat, likely EHP/s instead of raw shield shield boost. It sounds like you're in the right range for a standard fit ship with a Gistum C. So make sure you're reading the right thing and double check your numbers.

    The other option is that you're fitting something like cap flux coils for some reason. That's going to directly reduce shield boost.

    Either way, posting your fit would be most helpful if you want a solid answer.

  • Turret Damage Formula in EVE Gameplay Center

    Serendipity Lost wrote:
    I've found the best way to sort all this is to lock a ship, hit approach and start firing.


    The second best way to sort all this:

    1. Decide how you want your ship to do damage (short or long range). Pick that weapon for your ship (ex: blasters or rail guns)
    2. Fit them
    3. Add damage mods as you see fit (damage will go up)
    4. Add range mods as you see fit (you'll be able to hit things further away more better)
    5. Add tracking mods as you see fit (your damage will improve for small fast things, but not for large stationary things)
    6. Adjust as your targets selection varies (more damage and less tracking for big slow things AND more tracking for smaller/faster things)
    7. Remember what works best for what (write it down if necessary)
    8. Remember that you ships motion affects all these things
    9. Strive to not get hung up on min/max and formulas

    Missiles - same thing but a different set of mods
    Drones - same thing but a different set of mods
    Rigs - they are just another set of mods - fit according to your needs


    Protip: Things that serve you better than knowing and understanding the damage formulas for guns and missiles:
    1. Knowing when to use long vs short range weapons
    2. Understanding how the various modules affect/improve an equation that YOU CAN'T CHANGE

    It's a geek game. I get that. Getting you arms around the formulas is important to some folks. Just remember that knowing the formula doesn't really get you much when fitting a ship. Once you pick your weapon time - it's all about the modules and your targets. Focus on getting your arms around those things that you can change.


    You're not wrong, of course. I build simulations and understand formulae because I like it. The best way to understand their practical application is in space.

    For me, building things out first gives me some broad parameters within which to bound my activities (whether we're talking about fitting or flying). I have a pretty good sense for when to add, for instance, a damage mod versus an application mod and how that will change how I use a ship. That's valuable, and my first understanding comes from building spreadsheets. Honing that in can only be done undocked.

    The minutiae are fascinating to me. They are to other people as well. But grasping them alone won't let you master the game.

  • Turret Damage Formula in EVE Gameplay Center

    ExcalibursTemplar wrote:
    Does anyone know is the number shown in game for tracking now actually degrees instead radians ?


    Apparently it's radians * 1000. Because, sure, that makes ******* sense CCP.

  • Idea: Upwell structures should consume "base" amounts of fuel or ISK in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I really wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a *minimal* ongoing fuel consumption and I'm running three structures in the same system.

    However. If the idea is simply to make structures go offline when not maintained, I'd suggest a variation where fuel already being consumed by service modules applies. So for instance, if you have a base consumption of 1 block/hour on a medium structure, which doesn't seem unreasonable, then the structure would either consume 1 block/hour OR it would consume whatever it takes to run its online service modules, whichever is greater.

    That way you're not increasing the consumption on structures already in use, but you are allowing unused structures to slowly degrade if not maintained. That seems fair to me.

    It would also be nice to get more than 24 hours notice on fuel running out. Just saying.