Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 67 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2411
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:38:00 -
[241] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:@ Malcanis: This is not the time or place for hyperbolic and misplaced sarcasm, though I know you love that.
This kind of aggressive posting just lends itself to the impression that you have a vested interest in destroying discussion on this topic, or that you are having a bad day and looking to vent on someone. Both of which I would hope are not the case.
Look, it turns out he is just like the rest of the griefers, who gets off ruining the game play for others. The game is littered with them, and the CSM has about a dozen that consider it a great day when they can ruin high sec play in some way.
It is really sad. The last few months I had actually considered him a standup guy. I can only shudder at what else lies in store for high sec in the coming days as more assaults on it are announced. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
381
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:45:00 -
[242] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:nerf? If there is less minerals on market, price will rise accordingly to nerfed mineral influx -> in the long term nothing will change at all.
As a result of this extraneous change, every non-ice/ore refinable in the item gets a net nerf in base value due to the reduced efficiency of minerals you can get out of them.
Anyone who potentially profits from bringing in loot from wrecks is negatively affected by this, as are the non-ice/ore reprocessors who make their trade off what they bring in.
You would have to be insane or stupid to skill into non-ore/ice refining after this change, because all you will get for that is a market with less materials on hand to refine and a further reduced profit from doing so. Compare this to instead skilling for ice/ore refining, where you will instead have a market full of materials from which refine at better yields.
The change is categorically stupid and superfluous. It doesnt "fix" anything, and instead kills the non-ore/ice refinement profession as well as unnecessarily reducing the trash yield both as pure ISK on market as well as for personal use from refinement into minerals for your own manufacture processes.
It has no justification or explanation and all its ramifications result in a negative outcome for professions that where already only marginally benefitting from it. The profits where already so low that most mission/rat/plex runners didn't even bother bringing that trash back out of the wrecks. And the only thing keeping even that trash at any value, was the willingness of reprocessors to make a small profit from them. Post change, that will all collapse, for no rational or justified reason. |
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
74
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:54:00 -
[243] - Quote
Yep and if you think about it, it's still a nerf to miner requiring the implant which won't be worth it due to those that gank the least profitable profession in the game and having it require max skills before it's considered a buff "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mine" -Dr. Smith |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
5100
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:58:00 -
[244] - Quote
Dinsdale hypocrisy, best hypocrisy.
When we were discussing the 5% nerf that came bundled with the disastrous ESS thing, what did you (and very many other high sec zealots) say about that I wonder?
Oh yea, I remember now, it was "CCP has the numbers", meaning that CCPs has access to the data that shows them that null (and only null) bounties needed that 5% nerf.
So Dinsdale, did CCP suddenly , magically lose those same numbers whenever it comes to balancing things that affect high sec? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
14199
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 14:05:00 -
[245] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:@ Malcanis: This is not the time or place for hyperbolic and misplaced sarcasm, though I know you love that.
This kind of aggressive posting just lends itself to the impression that you have a vested interest in destroying discussion on this topic, or that you are having a bad day and looking to vent on someone. Both of which I would hope are not the case. Look, it turns out he is just like the rest of the griefers, who gets off ruining the game play for others. The game is littered with them, and the CSM has about a dozen that consider it a great day when they can ruin high sec play in some way. It is really sad. The last few months I had actually considered him a standup guy. I can only shudder at what else lies in store for high sec in the coming days as more assaults on it are announced.
I have never been anything but 100% truthful with you.
I did exactly what I said I would. This is part of an industry rebalance that is years overdue. It is simply not possible to claim that 0.0 industry and hi sec industry are remotely balanced. Hi-sec industry isn't going to be destroyed, no one is going to be "forced" to move to 0.0. When the discussion turned to ideas like simply disallowing production of certain items in hi-sec, I was absolutely and irrevocably opposed to that.
What's going to happen is that the thousands of industrial players who really were "forced" to move - to hi-sec - are going to be given the realistic and viable option to conduct production activity in 0.0
If that's what you want to call "destroying" hi-sec, so be it. But it's not an honest label and in your heart of hearts, you know it.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
14200
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 14:08:00 -
[246] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:@ Malcanis: This is not the time or place for hyperbolic and misplaced sarcasm, though I know you love that.
This kind of aggressive posting just lends itself to the impression that you have a vested interest in destroying discussion on this topic, or that you are having a bad day and looking to vent on someone. Both of which I would hope are not the case.
I'm sorry that a plain statement of the facts sounds sarcastic. If my characterisation of the consequences sounds hyperbolic, why don't you level the same criticism at the people who are saying similar things with genuine sincerity
1 Kings 12:11
|
Kuni Oichi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
173
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 14:12:00 -
[247] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
I did exactly what I said I would. This is part of an industry rebalance that is years overdue. It is simply not possible to claim that 0.0 industry and hi sec industry are remotely balanced. Hi-sec industry isn't going to be destroyed, no one is going to be "forced" to move to 0.0. When the discussion turned to ideas like simply disallowing production of certain items in hi-sec, I was absolutely and irrevocably opposed to that.
What's going to happen is that the thousands of industrial players who really were "forced" to move - to hi-sec - are going to be given the realistic and viable option to conduct production activity in 0.0
If that's what you want to call "destroying" hi-sec, so be it. But it's not an honest label and in your heart of hearts, you know it.
I'm sure you know by now that: Anything which can in any way be construed as a buff to null-sec is, in Dinsdale world, the cartel devs working for their paymasters in null. Anything which can in any way be construed as a nerf to high sec is, in Dinsdale world, the cartel devs working for their paymasters in null. Anything which is an outright nerf to null sec is, in Dinsdale world, CCP being reasonable and fair and how could anyone have a problem with it. Anything which is an outright buff to high sec is, in Dinsdale world, CCP being reasonable and fair and how could anyone have a problem with it. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
765
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 14:20:00 -
[248] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Doing missions wrong isn't a playstyle. Not that I disagree with the changes; in fact, I think they'll end up doing good in the long run, but your comment above is just baseless rhetoric. Because a mission runner chooses to loot his missions and bypass 'blitzing' does not mean he's mission running wrong. |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
382
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 14:25:00 -
[249] - Quote
@Malcanis: Because if I and everyone else responded to every idiot and troll on their own level and terms, it would only serve their purpose of derailing and destroying the thread from its actual topic.
That is not my goal, and I would hope not yours either. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5283
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 14:51:00 -
[250] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I don't play missions nor I care at all about modules.
However I have to notice how EvE now stands out as THE MMO (and RPG game in general) where when you find loot you go "oh noes, worthless junk" instead of clicking a loot button with expectation of some nice surprise. That's imo is quite dumb, MMO gaming design speaking.
3 weeks after an expansion, all world drops are common on the WoW market, and 6 months after an expansion, all blue world drops are being sharded, epics are hard to sell and greens are being vendored, and nobody needs the blues dropping in dungeons either- which is why they have to reset the whole game. I have meta 4 eccms, webs, painters, sebos and other stuff I use routinely (10 years after they were put in game, they all retain some value as drops). Also I routinely loot from entties like dewak humphries and the station at the end of the maze, and those things retain useful value many, many years after their introduction to the game. (ie dewak averages about 200m isk including his box, and I use his b-type stuff on one fit too, and still want 1 more thing off his loot table too). Those weird people that pilot shield supers buy the x-type stuff from the maze.
It does not work like that.
In EvE your ECMs are still working past 10 years because in EvE we don't get gear reset. Otherwise they'd get over-abundant and obsolete by the next 3 weeks as well.
But that's just because those ECMs are never replaced not because they are inherently good / long standing by their own, as you seem to imply.
Also, WoW follows another gear, loot and economy strategy so your side by side comparison is not meaningful. WoW enforces gear reset, that does not make the drops inherently bad, they just come with an expiration date.
What you do get in other games is the "awesome" moment. Yes maybe in 3 months the same item that gives you awe today will be junk, but emotively speaking the developers gratified you today. And in 3 months there will be something else to awe you again.
In EvE "general" and even "blue" drops have never been all that fantastic but they were useful in the form of materials. This aspect is being eroded since several years. In the beginning and for some years I campaigned myself to stop having L4 missioneers out-mine miners but that does not mean this nerf spree has to continue forever.
What I can see - and be worried about - is that we are slowly assisting to a "space divide".
You either find a way in the "Just and Good Guys" which usually means Goons or another super-huge null sec corp or you are doomed to be a piece of rubbish whose only reason to exist is to pay a sub, with NOTHING else given back.
Whereas nullsec needed rebalance since a long while, the stigma, hatred and distain shown for years towards those who don't want to conform to the One Thought is unbearable.
What I expecially feel is, that EvE is moving towards a theme park, where you are MEANT and FORCED to follow a guided path. From level 1 missions that really reward nothing at all to doing some mining-quasi-botting to some "was good" L4 and then slowly advance at a nerfed rate. Or you can go the Politically Correct, White man way and immediately join the guided, rosy path to Where You Are Meant To Go Next and end up being a rich null sec citizen.
All you had to do was to give up on freedom of choice. What somebody still considers the most priceless value.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20173
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:03:00 -
[251] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Look, it turns out he is just like the rest of the griefers, who gets off ruining the game play for others. You know that people who do that get banned, right? Also, could you please explain how making the gameplay more balanced counts as GÇ£griefingGÇ¥?
Quote:I can only shudder at what else lies in store for high sec in the coming days as more assaults on it are announced. GÇ£MoreGÇ¥? What others have there been so far?
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Now lets all please retuen to the actual topic, which is the non-ore/ice refining efficiency nerf, and its ramifications and lacking justifications. But that part is so trivial that it doesn't really evoke any kind of long-winded posting. Its ramifications are that people doing killing rats for the least worth-while reason imaginable will have even less reason to do so (i.e. minute) and that mineral compressors will have a far easier time going about their business than before (also minute). The biggest ramification is that it will be ever so slightly more cumbersome to get large volumes of minerals into nullGǪ
The justifications are more than adequate: mineral compression in its current incarnation is a downright silly mechanism when the game has actual compression already, and the silly overefficiency of scrap refining has completely obsoleted that mechanic. Also, for scrap and ore alike, it's absolutely ridiculous that any dilettante with next to zero investment can get the exact same output as someone who has spent ages and fortunes to get squeeze every last per mill out of the game GÇö this change gives that training and equipment value again. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
5101
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:05:00 -
[252] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Doing missions wrong isn't a playstyle. Not that I disagree with the changes; in fact, I think they'll end up doing good in the long run, but your comment above is just baseless rhetoric. Because a mission runner chooses to loot his missions and bypass 'blitzing' does not mean he's mission running wrong.
It does if his goal is to make the most isk in the least amount of time. If his goal is to build stuff, or gain standings for other reasons, or just for fun because he likes to see what kind of loot he can get out of mission wrecks, then clearing and salvaging/looting are fine.
If he's running missions for isk, intentionally lowering his isk/hr is the exact opposite of what he should be doing, better known as 'doing it wrong'.
It's not just missions, people do that across the board. I had a buddy I used to run anomalies and complexes with a few years ago. I'd chain anoms as fast as i could, for the isk from bounties but also because each site has a chance to escalate of produce a commander spawn. He'd do a couple, come back, loot and salvage with the same character, the reship and do some more.
We were both doing anoms to fund our pvp, he struggled to keep up with his loses, I didn't because I'd get escalation and though most of those sites didn't drop much, every once in a while you get a super drop (3+ bil one time from a DED 6/10). At the end of the day i spent less time having to do PVe and more time shooting at real people. He wasn't committing a crime doing things the way he was, he was just picking a sub-optimal way of doing it.
Sub-Optimal way of doing things, aka "doing it wrong" lol.
|
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
386
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:09:00 -
[253] - Quote
And more hyperbole and derailment.
Please, people, is it really so difficult to stay ontopic?
Why is scrap refining efficiency being nerfed below ore/ice refining?
The problem of moving minerals (in one form or another) from high sec to null is alresdy resolved by the double whanny of compression changes and greater null refining efficiency. It is indisputable this is a null buff, not only in that it makes transport of high sec resources easier, but it also directly makes null sec mining more efficient (so null can, atleast presumably, begin doing its own mining in its own space). That is however NOT the topic of this thread, nor a reason to justify what the topic of this thread is asking.
But why the scrap refinement efficiency nerf?
This affects all sectors (because the efficency is flat), and reduces the base value of all refinable items be they ships or modules and be they player produced or looted from wrecks throughout the universe.
This to the result that whatever small incentive there was to bringing trash back to market from missions/rats/plexes is further reduced, and the margins of scrap reprocessors directly reduced not only the impending reduction of available reprocessable materials briught back to market which they purchase to reprocess for a small profit, but also by the VALUE of that reprocessable trash being directly suppressed by the lower efficency.
WHY?
Nobody has answered this. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20173
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:13:00 -
[254] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:But why the scrap refinement efficiency nerf? See above.
Quote:Nobody has answered this. No, it has been answered quite a few times now.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5285
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:15:00 -
[255] - Quote
Helicity Boson wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something people might not expect given my predilection for turning the lives of miners into a wasteland of despair at irregular intervals but...
Good.
This change will result in mining being more profitable, both for the hardcore multiboxing miner and the just-starting-newbie in his Venture.
Mining needs to have a lower break-even threshold of profitability vs. time investment so that mining is not -entirely- relegated to multiboxing madmen and the (far less scrupulous) filth macro miners, and this is a good start.
Now all we need is an interesting minigame or other way to allow actual player interaction with the mining process to discourage afk-multibox-mining over actually playing the game and we're good to go.
As someone having a vast experience in many things all around mining, I can safely say you are missing a link.
The link is, the more you make it profitable, the more the multiboxers will spread and grow a bigger cancer than they already are.
This will - once gain - deepen the "space divide". The guy in a Retriever is going to get all of 2 mining cycles at ice before it's all depleted. It's easy to see this every day even now, imagine once it becomes even more profitable.
This is bad, because having played MMOs since early 2000 I have seen what happens when a "divide" happens.
The game becomes all in the hands of the "Elite" who were established before the big changes and the game worsens a lot for the newcomers till they start trickling down to null. Natural turnover which also affects (in a smaller portion) those established players does the rest and the game slowly fades out.
Annedoctal proof: EvE has become the great game it is without "space divides". Let's change the factors that made EvE great and see what happens. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
386
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:15:00 -
[256] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:But why the scrap refinement efficiency nerf? See above. Quote:Nobody has answered this. No, it has been answered quite a few times now.
Please, sincerely, direct me to where that has happened.
Ill wire you 10mil for your effort if the reference does indeed answer the question as thanks for the help. |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
2362
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:16:00 -
[257] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:But why the scrap refinement efficiency nerf? See above. Quote:Nobody has answered this. No, it has been answered quite a few times now.
Maybe but I have to admit I too have missed those in the midst of all the Dinsdale gibbering and the righteous replies to his gibbers. *** Vote MTU For CSM *** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." - Pontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20173
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:20:00 -
[258] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Ill wire you 10mil for your effort if the reference does indeed answer the question as thanks for the help. Again, see above. Getting 100% back from what's been produced is a moronic mechanic and obsoletes existing mechanics that are supposed to provide the same functionality. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5286
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:23:00 -
[259] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: It is really sad. The last few months I had actually considered him a standup guy.
He stopped being "super partes" more or less by the time he removed his former, epic signature. Since then he became just a +1 null sec going with the mainstream politically correct stream, like almost everybody else.
When you see every forum and all the threads with an One Thought, One Way with no real discussion (the 2-3 who dare speak are submerget in flames and worse) then it's a bad sign for the game. Because with no contradictory, mistakes can be made and nobody will dare say the train is going to crash. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Twenty Five Percent
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:25:00 -
[260] - Quote
Nerf Dinsdale |
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:32:00 -
[261] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Ill wire you 10mil for your effort if the reference does indeed answer the question as thanks for the help. Again, see above. Getting 100% back from what's been produced is a moronic mechanic and obsoletes existing mechanics that are supposed to provide the same functionality.
What other mechanics provide the functionality to get 100% back from what has been produced? |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
392
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:35:00 -
[262] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Ill wire you 10mil for your effort if the reference does indeed answer the question as thanks for the help. Again, see above. Getting 100% back from what's been produced is a moronic mechanic and obsoletes existing mechanics that are supposed to provide the same functionality.
But this is false and besides the point. You are not grasping the real issue at hand here.
The market for reprocessing trash is not related to compression in anyway shape or form, except in the pre-patch incarnation where 425mm shipments had to be first manufcatured in high sec from extant materials, and then REPROCESSED in null for the minerals they require. THAT is what was silly. That you could manufacture 425mms in high, and move them to Null for not only 100% efficiency in REPROCESSING them but also with less volume required. Null entities argue this was necessary because they feel, for one reason or another, that that was better than meeting their own mineral needs from the space they have availqble to themout there.
This is no longer the case as a result of the other elements of this change, namely compression changes and higher null refinement efficiency of ores themselves. There is no longer a need for the 425mm trick. Null can compress ores for purposes of shipment, and leverage those at their own high efficiency installations as well as their own local ores.
You are confusing two unrelated issues.
The proposed additional non-ice/ore refinement change results in a flat, universal, sec irrelevant reduction in the value of ALL refinable items such as ships and modules. A 100% efficiency was indeed silly, but the proposed change takes it to BELOW that of ice/ore refinement with no recourse to improving it based on station or sec.
Why would anyone skill into scrap refining now? Not only will there be less refinable materials brought in from wrecks, because they are worth less and players simply wont bother to loot and transport them to market, but the base value of those refinable items themselves is depressed by the reduction in efficiency in refining them.
Net result: Nobody will bring int trash anymore. And nobody will skill non-ice/ore refinement, because not only is the market devoid of materials to refine but the value of those items is in and of itself also depressed to where if instead you bought and refined ore/ice, you would be laughing.
Do you understand what I am saying? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20173
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:51:00 -
[263] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:What other mechanics provide the functionality to get 100% back from what has been produced? GÇ£The same mechanicGÇ¥ being mineral compression to facilitate materials logistics.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:But this is false and besides the point. It's not false, and it answers your question, which makes it on as on point as can be.
Quote:The market for reprocessing trash is not related to compression in anyway shape or form The market for reprocessed trash will adjust and is pretty irrelevant on the whole GÇö it's just gun mining, which should be nuked to tiny bits anyway. It relates to compression because reprocessing is currently the mechanism used to compress minerals, so it is related in every shape and form. Since mineral compressionGÇönot refining of GÇ£scrapGÇ¥GÇöis supposed to provide the mechanism thatGǪ you knowGǪ compresses minerals, the ability to go through the scrap process needs to be shot in the knees until it really hurts.
I'm not confusing two unrelated issue; you're confused by not seeing how they (very obviously) relate.
Quote:Why would anyone skill into scrap refining now? Because the skills are still useful for other purposes and because it gives you more minerals from your scrap, and people will still bring that in by the bucketload as using their Noctium and GÇ£loot allGÇ¥ buttons. Oh, and some modules will still provide better (volume) compression than going through the proper mechanism, so there will still be a market for them.
If people are really upset that their crap is less worh looting now (and it was never worth it to begin with), they can ask CCP to up the mineral content to compensateGǪ It doesn't change the fact that scrap reprocessing offered exactly zero margins for real compression and that to provide such a margin, it needed to be reduced a whole lot. It's much the same problem as with all the benefits highsec industry currently offer, really. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:01:00 -
[264] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
What's going to happen is that the thousands of industrial players who really were "forced" to move - to hi-sec - are going to be given the realistic and viable option to conduct production activity in 0.0
Unfortunately this is not "just an option to move back to null", it also creates the same problem you have percieved with compression in the reverse, the ore will not be snailed to high to get refined and mineral compressed, it will flow compressed to null, be refined and minerals snailed to high. You know how people are about "15% extra".
Not even talking about what i do care about, reprocessing and mineral compression...
The problem in general is that that the overhaul has too many goals, does not seem to achieve them, so they look just like excuses so that whenever anyone points out that goal A can hardly be achieved someone (like you? :) is able to say "but but but goal B!"
Example, intentionally a neutral one:
"104+% (old) refine from POS refineries with skills 0 does not motivate people to skill refining!" "But but but we NEED to give POS refineries a advantage!"
|
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
392
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:03:00 -
[265] - Quote
@Tippia:
Your evasive reply and refusal to address key facts and ramifications is now sufficient to concern me that there are indeed vested interests in these proposed changes and that all attempts to objectively discuss the actual issues will be deliberately stonewalled and sabotaged.
I will express my dissent by withdrawing from this discussion. Have it "your" way. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1228
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:15:00 -
[266] - Quote
Items that are manufactured by players, are valued by the materials and process required to make them. What they refine into is a non issue as far as pricing goes.
Meta1-3 Items afaik have always had 2-3 uses Invention Mutators Cheap/Disposable Fitting Options Refining
By reducing the amount of minerals recovered from the reprocessing of mission loot, it shifts the emphasis towards Mining as a source of minerals .... go figure, who'd have thought that mining was a source of minerals, *gasp, shock, the horror*
SOV space needing to either mine locally, or ship the raw ore/minerals in as ore/minerals ... I'd call that a good change as well.
|
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
2364
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:21:00 -
[267] - Quote
Hmmm I really am missing where people are going for this 100% reprocessing :( *** Vote MTU For CSM *** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." - Pontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20173
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:23:00 -
[268] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:@Tippia:
Your evasive reply and refusal to address key facts and ramifications is now sufficient to concern me that there are indeed vested interests in these proposed changes and that all attempts to objectively discuss the actual issues will be deliberately stonewalled and sabotaged. Riiight. Try not moving the goal posts as much and maybe the answer will be less GÇ£evasive". Since you can't express what's been missed, the stonewalling is all yours.
In the meantime, the simple fact of the matter remains: scrap refining obsoletes existing, purpose-built mechanics, and nothing that really matters is affected by introducing a margin (through an efficiency reduction) that give those mechanics room to breathe. If you don't want to discuss this actual issue, you don't get to accuse others of not taking any other, ill-defined, marginal, or even imagined issues into account. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
392
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:29:00 -
[269] - Quote
As is in your sig, I dont care enough to argue on decisions that have already been made outside my purview, with vested individuals who demonstrably have on intent to discuss objectively.
This is all a farce and I want no part in it. You are free to dig your own hole. I will not waste time or effort preventing you from doing so. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20174
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:39:00 -
[270] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:As is in your sig, I dont care enough to argue on decisions that have already been made outside my purview, with vested individuals who demonstrably have no intent to discuss objectively. You mean like people who wilfully ignore the actual reasons and logic behind a change, only to shout GÇ£no-one has provided any reasoning or logic for this change"?
Yes, the discussion becomes a bit farcical at that pointGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 67 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |