|
Malefitz posted:https://br.evetools.org/br/60031d7b85bfbe001bf1d2e0 omg lol. Talk about loving owned.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Head shot baby! This page is owned by Nooch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
So is our enemy's plan to get so many different fleets trapped in M2 that we end up crashing the node anchoring bubbles on all of them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Malefitz posted:https://br.evetools.org/br/60031d7b85bfbe001bf1d2e0 I'm disappointed to see that Razor went fuccgoon
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm disappointed to see that Razor went fuccgoon Are you at all surprised though
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Lets say I buy from the 1DQ market an entire ship fitting. Then fit it, then list it on contracts and net maybe 12mil off of 312mil eagle. Is that bad manners? I'm basically just giving alliance members access to my market skills for a 12mil markup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
FAT32 SHAMER posted:Are you at all surprised though Kinda. The pilots I DID have contact with over the years were consistently high quality people. When CCP still had an Atlanta HQ, I'd regularly meet guys in their trucker corp for beer when they stopped over for maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Xarn posted:Less joky suggestion: cloaking devices can only be run overloaded. Tweak its heat generation and heat damage it can take, so that it can be run for a reasonable amount of time, but you cannot just perma cloak from DT to DT. Or if you can, then only because you are eating nanite paste like candy, so it is expensive enough to discourage having 40 perma cloak alts. My idea would be to introduce special probes which have kind of lovely probe strength, but can probe down cloaked ships. You can even re-purpose the T2-combat probes for this, since I'm fairly sure most people just use the Sister-version, anyway. No need even to add new probes! Maybe add some kind of new probe-skill for anti-stealth probing to tie this new mechanic in, done. Now specialized skills and equipment (cloak and cloaking skill) are directly countered by specialized skills and equipment (anti-stealth skill and probes). Still allows explorers to go anywhere, but the day of the AFK-cloaker is at an end, since it's now trivially easy to remove cloaked campers if they're not at the keyboard 24/7 to notice the new probes dropping around them. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
SnoochtotheNooch posted:Lets say I buy from the 1DQ market an entire ship fitting. Then fit it, then list it on contracts and net maybe 12mil off of 312mil eagle. Is that bad manners? I'm basically just giving alliance members access to my market skills for a 12mil markup. I wouldn't consider that goonfucking unless you buy entire stocks of fits. But buying a few fits and relisting them on contract? Shouldn't be so bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Libluini posted:My idea would be to introduce special probes which have kind of lovely probe strength, but can probe down cloaked ships. You can even re-purpose the T2-combat probes for this, since I'm fairly sure most people just use the Sister-version, anyway. No need even to add new probes! Personally I'd prefer a system that makes it costly to remain cloaked indefinitely. Something that scales up the longer you're cloaked. The goal is to make it costly to have multiple afk-cloak characters by making it impossible for people to fund the account through skillgoo and other means. Let's be real, most of these accounts are paid through PLEX bought on the market, which is one more factor of inflation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Sapporo Jones on Reddit removed my high quality meme from r/eve. https://imgur.com/gallery/nk9uSG0
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Personally I'd prefer a system that makes it costly to remain cloaked indefinitely. Something that scales up the longer you're cloaked. The goal is to make it costly to have multiple afk-cloak characters by making it impossible for people to fund the account through skillgoo and other means. Make cloak use a new isotope with a decay rate so it evaporates from your cargo after 7 days if you don't dock in a friendly station to stabilize it. Minimal added cost or logistics to fleets, but a severe handicap to cloaky campers who would have to risk gate camps to go dock up or use jump-capable camping ships.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Xarn posted:Less joky suggestion: cloaking devices can only be run overloaded. Tweak its heat generation and heat damage it can take, so that it can be run for a reasonable amount of time, but you cannot just perma cloak from DT to DT. Or if you can, then only because you are eating nanite paste like candy, so it is expensive enough to discourage having 40 perma cloak alts. this is brilliant and ccp has already done this to a certain extent. the vorton projector can be overloaded for like a solid 15 minutes before it will burn out, and repairing one from 80% costs like 200 nanite paste. do this with an hour and a substantial nanite repair paste time and amount and we're cooking with fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
SnoochtotheNooch posted:Lets say I buy from the 1DQ market an entire ship fitting. Then fit it, then list it on contracts and net maybe 12mil off of 312mil eagle. Is that bad manners? I'm basically just giving alliance members access to my market skills for a 12mil markup. Why people use contracts when there’s a ‘buy all’ in the fitting window is a mystery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Malefitz posted:https://br.evetools.org/br/60031d7b85bfbe001bf1d2e0 Love our allies 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Personally I'd prefer a system that makes it costly to remain cloaked indefinitely. Something that scales up the longer you're cloaked. The goal is to make it costly to have multiple afk-cloak characters by making it impossible for people to fund the account through skillgoo and other means. Cobbsprite posted:Make cloak use a new isotope with a decay rate so it evaporates from your cargo after 7 days if you don't dock in a friendly station to stabilize it. Minimal added cost or logistics to fleets, but a severe handicap to cloaky campers who would have to risk gate camps to go dock up or use jump-capable camping ships. Personally, I don't like ideas like those because they basically delete independent explorers from the game. We all use cloaks to move through hostile space all the time, and having us pay for what other players (AfK campers) are doing sucks rear end. Though there's precedent with stuff like CCP nerfing Rorquals after people started to complain about goons mining too much, so who knows what  will be doing in the end? At the very least there'll be a lot less competition for me when inevitably a lot of explorers are caught without cloak fuel hours away from a safe port, and then keep dying if they log out in hostile space and take longer then 7 days to log back in.Anyway, asking for cloak fuel is just asking CCP to solve your problem for you, and then I have to ask you: If you don't want to play the game, what are you even doing here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
If someone donates me like 4 billion isk I will get a carrier and camp it at m2 and pay you back through the killboard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
 Bubble factory go brrr.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
Cerb Prices 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
That reminds me, can't wait to get my 24m dividend from the war bonds
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
SnoochtotheNooch posted:Lets say I buy from the 1DQ market an entire ship fitting. Then fit it, then list it on contracts and net maybe 12mil off of 312mil eagle. Is that bad manners? I'm basically just giving alliance members access to my market skills for a 12mil markup. I put up buy orders for the fit, then put up the contract at less-than multibuy rate. Generally works out just fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
https://soundcloud.com/hypr1/paspinocapsstand-down-after-being-bombed-to-the-stonage listen to this and laugh - it happened after they had 100 cerbs dumpstered by bombers
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Personally, I don't like ideas like those because they basically delete independent explorers from the game. We all use cloaks to move through hostile space all the time, and having us pay for what other players (AfK campers) are doing sucks rear end. I think there's a way to strike a balance for the activation cost in terms of fuel & module repetition to ensure that people who only use it to travel and cloak when needed aren't overly affected compare to those who remain cloaked 23h a day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Solus posted:https://soundcloud.com/hypr1/paspinocapsstand-down-after-being-bombed-to-the-stonage Can we set fire to the word "content"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Personally, I don't like ideas like those because they basically delete independent explorers from the game. We all use cloaks to move through hostile space all the time, and having us pay for what other players (AfK campers) are doing sucks rear end. there are obvious ways they can make it not impact explorers, but as someone who has done a lot of cloaky exploration because i lived in wormholes for years  you seem to concede that AFK cloaky camping is a problem but somehow the game developer responding to like a decade of criticism about it is asking CCP to solve the players' problems for them? particularly where there is no potential counter to cloaky camping? CCP have said they're going to change the ways cloak works - period. i assume if that change comes you're going to just keep quiet about it or leave because Libluini posted:If you don't want to play the game, what are you even doing here? loving lawl
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
rocketrobot posted:
Just something that makes it infeasible to AFK. I'm not sure cost is the answer, it could be something about the module itself. A module that can run for an hour... but then has a random 10 to 15 minute window of failing to work as it cools down, or something. Maybe a special fuel that can only sit in a special hold, and you then have to reload the module, and it takes 10 minutes to reload while you're uncloaked waiting at a mobile depot. Cloaker probes could also work, along with maybe a matching decloak module, and it'd even let CCP introduce a new ship class. Imagine that CCP, more ships, and a whole new style of emergent game play, this one actually appeals to me. I've thought making it so a cyno and a cloak can't be fit on the same ship. At least then I stand a chance of a fair fight on the trap being sprung rather than being jumped on by a large fleet of alpha damage ships, but it does ruin a good number of reasonable cloak use cases. causticBeet posted:how are cloaked campers a problem for anyone who isn’t literally afk in tyool2021 Because there's no rock-paper-scissors for it, and it's AFK force amplification resulting in area nullification. Short of the cloaker doing something mind-blowingly stupid, there's nothing I can do to eliminate the possible threat. If you're there actively at the keyboard, cloaked, cool. If you're off at work or asleep, meh. As a long time player, I'm not bothered by them all that much, but I still think it's a stupid game mechanic that is a hold over from a period of EVE which isn't anymore. And yeah, I've done the same thing to others in the past. And no, I haven't lost a ship to a cloaking camper in as long as I can remember. snail fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jan 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Cloaks need counterplay. Adding fuel or burnout is not the correct counterplay. It just makes AFK camping more spreadsheety and require resupply. The counterplay is still waiting for the camper to fuckup or lose patience. Boring and stupid non-gameplay. Someone proposed awhile back an IHUB upgrade that could ping out and make cloaks scannable or disrupted for a short period on a long cooldown. That's a better idea because it allows you to actually fight back rather then waiting for the cloaky camper to fuckup and run out of fuel or something. If the camper is at the keyboard, they should be able to escape the anti-cloak ping, if they're not, then they should be hunted down and destroyed just like every other system in the game that you can do semi-AFK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
Which one of you bought an forums ad with your Eve referral code? Admit it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
I remember when I was part of a wildly successful bombing run  https://fleetcom.space/battlereport/NuZR3ym7BzCGL93oT bomber fleets are so much fun
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
Ajaxify posted:Which one of you bought an forums ad with your Eve referral code? Admit it. that's a good idea tbh
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
Yeah I want to shame them because I am upset I didn't think of it first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Just like I missed the boat on getting my free Titan on Feb 1st betting with Andail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I think there's a way to strike a balance for the activation cost in terms of fuel & module repetition to ensure that people who only use it to travel and cloak when needed aren't overly affected compare to those who remain cloaked 23h a day. Fair enough, but I still think special anti-cloak probes would be a better counter-play, since it involves people doing poo poo, instead of people watching spreadsheets/waiting around for cloaks to fail. Baculus posted:
I love how you bothered to type all this poo poo out and yet completely missed that I was criticizing one particular counter to cloaking, not claiming nothing should ever be done. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
Amusingly, the complaining about AFK cloaking declined a lot during the golden age of capital ship PVE. Rorquals and (super)carriers had great counterplay for anything that could pop out of a covert cyno or wormhole. It was a fun game of cat and mouse: inner hell would pop out of a wormhole, and if they dropped on somebody smart, we'd hear about it on coms and get to drop and push their poo poo in. If they dropped on somebody dumb, welp, shiny killmail. I concede the rate of isk and mineral generation was bad for the game, but I miss idling in Theta coms and dropping caps on nerds very much. Anyway, these days a single cloaky camper is a big threat, since bombers delete anything worth using to make isk in nullsec. Anyone seriously interested in PVE should probably be doing it on alts in hisec. Land of unlimited ore and on-demand 200m+ isk/hour abyssal sites...
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:Why people use contracts when there’s a ‘buy all’ in the fitting window is a mystery. The only time I buy on contract these days is when I want to fit up a doctrine ship and one of the mods just isn't on the market. If I can't wait, or don't want to wait I'll just buy the fit on contract. I don't know enough about the ins and outs of SRP and fitting to know when a particular module can be swapped out for an alternate and when it can't. I just fit exactly what Uncle Arrendis says to fit 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
The only times I haven't gotten SRP was when I made some embarrassing mistake like flying a ship without all the mid slots fitted or without any rigs. I've gotten poo poo Stack a few times but that was always for flying a non-doctrine snowflake ship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
my first srp was denied because asher made it pretty clear it was a harpy suicide run and i emptied my cargo to reflect that so i didn't have all the ammo or refits been fine since then
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
redbrouw posted:Can we set fire to the word "content"? Yes, please. I loving hate this terminology. It boils off all of the nuance and context of this game into this hyperspecific, insipid gameplay fraction, and is then nailed up to a cross and paraded around. It's idolatry of the worst kind and it needs to die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm disappointed to see that Razor went fuccgoon Nobody that I remember is on there, and definitely not my HVAC salesman chief, so I'm not too surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Gwyneth Palpate posted:Yes, please. I loving hate this terminology. It boils off all of the nuance and context of this game into this hyperspecific, insipid gameplay fraction, and is then nailed up to a cross and paraded around. It's idolatry of the worst kind and it needs to die. It’s video games marketing except the hardcore love the term because it makes them sound like Professional Gamers™
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 01:40
|
|