These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: 2007-03-08 17:34
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-06 20:55
  • Likes Received: 0

Grath Telkin

Security Status 2.5
  • Sniggerdly Member since
  • Pandemic Legion Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • "PLEX can no longer be used for Character transfer fee payments" in EVE Communication Center

    How to trash a great track record since the monocle turd festival in one greedy money grab.



    Though seriously, after what they did with the Rorquals I'm stunned any of you are shocked, CCP is going to start milking its players like never before, they literally hired a person specifically who had a ton of experience in that.

  • Jump Fatigue Feedback in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    Sonya Corvinus wrote:
    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    Sonya Corvinus
    Did you ever consider, one of the reasons supers and capitals in general are so common is because of jump fatigue?
    Prior to jump fatigue capitals were much harder to use than they are now due to mega groups racing all over new eden and killing them, you didn't undock caps without much thought and consideration because BL PL or NC. could be on your doorstep within a short time.
    Now when someone uses caps there is a lot of planning and strategy goes into it due to how long it takes to get them anywhere. Hence there are more of them because they just don't get used enough to kill off stockpiles.

    As you seem to think players throw away 2 bil plus isk carriers by whelping them, PLEASE show me one killmail that would go close to proving this. Personally I would never undock a ratting carrier with the intention of letting it die (whelping it) nobody I know would.
    I (and many others) have undocked a brick tanked carrier with a cyno (which is absolutely no good for ratting if your plan is to make isk) and warped it to an anom to bait out a far more expensive super or titan and killed it. Risking a 2 bil carrier to kill a 20 bil + super or 100 bil + titan, could be called a whelp I suppose. I've never lost one doing it though, thanks to logi.
    Whelping a fleet (even capitals) into a far superior fleet can be fun but isn't something you do in ratting carriers...

    And I totally agree - Death to all caps - Now all you need to do is get Devs to reduce stacking fatigue so that can begin to happen.. (I own quite a few of caps and a titan, I just wish I could use them more than once or twice a month - Losing them in battle would then would be an honor)


    I've lived in null/WHs/LS longer than you've played this game. If you think 2 bil is a lot to whelp, you've never actually lived in null. Jump fatigue is good. It needs to be harsher than it already is. You disagree. You seem fundamentally incapable of understanding people disagree with you (or you're trolling, I can't tell which right now). Caps and Supers are common because null is HS with extra safety anymore. You know what I tell new players? Leave HS immediately and go to null. With massive intel channels it's infinitely safer to earn ISK there than HS.

    I look forward to you ignoring me again and assuming your opinion is law.

    Whelping 2 bil is nothing (a day or 2 ratting), I just don't understand how or why you think people whelp rattng carriers. Do you know what a whelp is?

    I don't "assume" anything - You're doing that all on your own.
    I've tried to be objective and explain my point of view - You on the other hand have not tried to explain yours. Your argument is - Fatigue needs to be harsher, which is not so much an argument or explanation as it is a baseless statement (your right I'm wrong).

    Ok, one more time.
    As an example;
    Group A - 3,000 man sov holding alliance, has a 400 strong capital fleet at their disposal to fight off attackers and defend their sov.

    Group B - 3,000 man alliance that wants to go fight Group A (lives 2 regions away), they have roughly the same sized capital fleet as those they want to fight but due to distance and fatigue (the harsher one you think is needed) it is not viable to move their caps due to the time required.

    Group B decide after working out the logistics of deploying, it just isn't worth it because of the time required.

    Group A keeps their sov, no-one gets fights, good or bad, simply because no-one can reasonably get to them to fight.
    Remember - Even just deploying subcaps to fight with requires capital ships, unless each person only takes one ship which wouldn't be much of a deployment would it.,.

    By making fatigue harsher you end up making a stagnant nulsec. Those sov holders with decent capital fleets would not have their sov threatened.
    Why is it do you think there has not been a big capital fight in so long?

    You say you want death to all caps but insist on increasing the one thing that prevents that from happening.

    10 years in August - I've been around a while. (you're assuming your're right, again)


    You're wrong, fattygay is one of the best things they put in the game, it put the shackles on the alliance im in quite nicely and the game is better off for it.

  • [May] CONCORD Aerospace Promotional Ships in EVE Technology and Research Center

    lol at all the randy low sec guys

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    Querns wrote:

    Nah. Just don't be lazy and you'll be fine.

    You guys even have an AUTZ corp--- oh, wait, no.


    We're actually pulling 100+ guys for most AUTZ ops after Dansara spent a few months rebuilding it, the point of my post is to keep the moon miner viable as a fight generator and avoid the stupidity that comes from the current garbage of '3 timers and a week of time for a citadel with no fuel in it at all thats not defended'


    Man, you guys must have hated Dominion sov if you can't handle three or more timers for a thing.

    Given the rate that your alliance (and others) slaughter rorquals in our space, one would think you'd see the fight potential in these things.


    The POTENTIAL is there, but, given current citadel tactics everybody is simply going to put these to down time for vulnerability and at best you'll be ganking miners while its active.

    The structure itself will end up entirely immune, which sucks because like or not hitting a moon miners is a fairly huge part in nullsec warfare, its one of those things that allow smaller entities to harass larger entities in a meaningful way, not just 'lol ganked ur hulk'

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    CCP Phantom wrote:
    A set of new Upwell Structures is in the works: Behold the Upwell Refineries!

    Refineries will be the premiere structure for resource collection and processing. They have bonuses to reprocessing and the exclusive ability to fit moon mining and reaction service modules.This will give us completely new gameplay for moon mining and reactions, as well as linking into future resource collection gameplay.

    Check out the exciting details in this blog Introducing Upwell Refineries


    Posted this somewhere else but i'll put it here so you see it:

    Quote:

    This seems pretty easy right, heres a simple fix that makes this viable:

    The entire time its dragging its chunk of moon up that it fracked off, its vulnerable. If you knock a miner into its final timer any fracking gravity drag move stops.



    Look at me, I'm a ducking genius.


    Single point conflict restored, moon mining is a bottom up process that its meant to be and we don't all have to **** around with AUTZ timer spam.



    Nah. Just don't be lazy and you'll be fine.

    You guys even have an AUTZ corp--- oh, wait, no.


    We're actually pulling 100+ guys for most AUTZ ops after Dansara spent a few months rebuilding it, the point of my post is to keep the moon miner viable as a fight generator and avoid the stupidity that comes from the current garbage of '3 timers and a week of time for a citadel with no fuel in it at all thats not defended'

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    CCP Phantom wrote:
    A set of new Upwell Structures is in the works: Behold the Upwell Refineries!

    Refineries will be the premiere structure for resource collection and processing. They have bonuses to reprocessing and the exclusive ability to fit moon mining and reaction service modules.This will give us completely new gameplay for moon mining and reactions, as well as linking into future resource collection gameplay.

    Check out the exciting details in this blog Introducing Upwell Refineries


    Posted this somewhere else but i'll put it here so you see it:

    Quote:

    This seems pretty easy right, heres a simple fix that makes this viable:

    The entire time its dragging its chunk of moon up that it fracked off, its vulnerable. If you knock a miner into its final timer any fracking gravity drag move stops.



    Look at me, I'm a ducking genius.


    Single point conflict restored, moon mining is a bottom up process that its meant to be and we don't all have to **** around with AUTZ timer spam.

  • Dev blog: The Advancing World of Upwell Structures in EVE Information Center

    CCP Phantom wrote:
    We are working on improving existing Upwell Structures (Citadels, Engineering Complexes) and also on new Upwell Structures.

    We would like to give you a high level overview of where we currently are with those structures and where we want to go. We also would like to get your feedback and encourage you to fill out this survey.

    But first, check the latest dev blog and learn more about The Advancing World of Upwell Structures.


    Chant with me:

    No Fuel No Tether.


    Fix that and you'll see the spam subside, right now they offer a 100% safe space for little investment, and zero maintenance.

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

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    Right, so this was just a cash grab that CCP pulled to get players interested in a ship only to run it back into uselessness 2 months later after players had invested heavily in the new ship.

    All you had to say is that you guys are finding new and interesting ways to milk your player base for cash, and they put you at the helm of it all.



    Well, I guess that answers the question about whether anyone in PL bought PLEX to buy Rorquals... Lol

    Seriously, how has someone who's played as long as the average PL player not figured out that if something looks too good it probably is and is going to get nerfed...


    I haven't mined since the day they were released, while you're over here leaping to conclusions.


    To think I'm some rare fringe case where people bought plex proves you have a tiny zika ravaged mind.


    LOTS of people injected rorquals, you can look at the injector market to see that as it calmed down after the rorqual release.


    And do you think any of those people would have purchased them if the end result would have been anything near a 10 billion isk version of 2 hulks?

    No, so its a simple case of bait and switch, a **** play by CCP and if you think they didn't set out to gouge you like that you're nuts, this is classic CCP digging for pennies in the couch.

    Its a trash way to treat your player base after all these years.

    EDIT: And as far as 'looks to good to be true' mining still made less than any other profession. Super ratting can net you 400+/hr and yet they go after mining.

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

    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    Jura McBain wrote:

    2 hulks 600M
    1 Rorq 12B.

    Now ,what is the point of mining whit rorqs?
    There has always been a premium for more powerful ships and abilities in EVE. As power increases, cost increases faster.
    We'll be happy with Rorq balance someday when players have interesting choices to make when deciding how many Rorquals to bring and how many Hulks to bring.



    Right, so this was just a cash grab that CCP pulled to get players interested in a ship only to run it back into uselessness 2 months later after players had invested heavily in the new ship.

    All you had to say is that you guys are finding new and interesting ways to milk your player base for cash, and they put you at the helm of it all.

  • [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.

    These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy.

    At the same time we're preparing some other changes related to mining that have more to do with QoL and module balance.

    Here's the package of somewhat related changes we have in mind at the moment:

    Excavator Drones:
    We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy. I know it never feels good when things get nerfed but we're very confident that the Rorqual will continue to be an extremely powerful mining ship after these changes (not to mention the value provided by its other functions such as foreman links and defenses). We plan on continuing to make changes in this area as necessary over the coming months with the goal of keeping the mineral market healthy and ensuring that a wide variety of mining ships are viable.
    [list]
  • Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life.



Why, who exactly thinks this is a problem?

Its not the players so who is it?

You've achieved the ability to largely force localized production while at the same time putting ships in space that people are actually fighting over and you want to change that why exactly?


Your stated reason is trash tier, stop talking like we're dumb. The mineral basket was bound to collapse as long as jump freighters remained un nerfed so now that you've proven that you can support localized production why are you going all chickenshit on us?

What on earth makes you think its ok to make a ship cost so much and do so little in return and why do you think its ok to do that after you baited so much of your player base into buying into it?

It will literally mine like 2 hulks. Are you serious?

EDIT: You're screwing up parts of the game that are functionally working while ignoring things like citadels granting a tether with no fuel so it that space is now grotesquely littered with these perma safe dumpster fires. Thanks for wasting everybodies time.

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Olmeca Gold wrote:
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    Now lets remove nullification from anything but an interceptor.


    Oh the amount of playstyles you have to be ignorant of to even suggest this makes me lol

    PS: Lots of us dont care about how frustrating nullified combat ships might have been for nullblob people. Two things this game definitely absolutely needs to keep having are nullified covert cyno ships and nullified probers.


    Pro tip: Defending your playstyle is expected, defending a broken mechanic because it makes your life easier though, nobody honestly gives a **** about you needing or wanting nullified cynos or probers.

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Good start, though I'd like to see all bubbles die in 24 hours or less.

    Now lets remove nullification from anything but an interceptor.

  • ✝✝✝ - Capsuleer Memorials - ✝✝✝ in EVE Gameplay Center

    You have no idea how much I appreciate you doing what you do, but thank you for this from me and all of us.

  • Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension in EVE Information Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Dodo Veetee wrote:
    ITT: Goons and that exe dude are salty as ****


    Uhhh wut...I'm not crying, I think this is an understandable move. Grath et. al. sure seem salty...


    The game is 15 years old, I'll be salty every time CCP makes another dumb choice that hurts the game in anyway.

    I swear to god its like they're fumbling around looking for better ways to lower the player base.

  • Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension in EVE Information Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:


    Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.



    Yea, I'm 100% sure Bam would never and has never engaged in RMT to the point that he goes above and beyond contact CCP at the slightest thing.

    I'm not 100% on EOH but im at about 99%.

    I mean we're getting into weird spaces here right, like what if the IRS says that the isk you earned is taxable income because it can be equated to a plex in some weird strange way.

    That sounds absurd, about as absurd as thinking removing gambling houses from eve somehow eliminates gambling. If the sites are honest and open with the game company at all times, and run above board, I see no reason for them not to exist as its all CCPs property if it doesn't leave the game (violating this would negate the whole 'above board')


    Okay, so...what is my birthday?

    Serious question.

    Doesn't matter:
    Teckos Pech wrote:


    These are not "weird spaces". That is exactly one reason why CCP says you don't own your in game Stuff™. Also why it has no value.

    You're not really gambling, everything in use is actually CCP's.

  • Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension in EVE Information Center

    Max Deveron wrote:
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:


    Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of.


    So why punish them?


    Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved.




    So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that?

    Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere.

    So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules.

    You know, like a normal sane person would do.

    EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here.


    The issue remains though that if someone has a gambling problem, lose a few billion ISK in poker, they drop Real money to buy plex, cash in the plex for ISK and continue to play poker.
    That is the problem that is now being axed with preventative measures such as this new EULA, and imo it is for the better.


    This doesn't fix that, people will still gamble, prohibition doesn't work.

  • Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension in EVE Information Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:


    Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.



    Yea, I'm 100% sure Bam would never and has never engaged in RMT to the point that he goes above and beyond contact CCP at the slightest thing.

    I'm not 100% on EOH but im at about 99%.

    I mean we're getting into weird spaces here right, like what if the IRS says that the isk you earned is taxable income because it can be equated to a plex in some weird strange way.

    That sounds absurd, about as absurd as thinking removing gambling houses from eve somehow eliminates gambling. If the sites are honest and open with the game company at all times, and run above board, I see no reason for them not to exist as its all CCPs property if it doesn't leave the game (violating this would negate the whole 'above board')

  • Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension in EVE Information Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:


    Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of.


    So why punish them?


    Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved.




    So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that?

    Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere.

    So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules.

    You know, like a normal sane person would do.

    EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here.

  • Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension in EVE Information Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:


    Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of.


    So why punish them?

  • Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension in EVE Information Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:


    I didn't say they were all banned. But some were and those that were it was related to RMT,


    Teckos Pech wrote:


    Stop talking out of ignorance you do not know who was banned or precisely what was taken from whom. Neither do I.


    2 posts on the same page contradicting yourself?

  • Forum Signature

    Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.