Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
De'Veldrin
Saint's Industries Brothers of Tangra
2096
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 17:02:00 -
[691] - Quote
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
As concord protection and 24 hour warning on it lifting, on top of all the other fun quirks of Crius, kinda trumps all other concerns.
Details on this bit? GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. |
Gaijin Lanis
Surely You're Joking
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 04:58:00 -
[692] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:Gaijin Lanis wrote:
As concord protection and 24 hour warning on it lifting, on top of all the other fun quirks of Crius, kinda trumps all other concerns.
Details on this bit? Unless they are changing or have changed it, CONCORD will defend player owned structures in hisec from attack unless a war is declared. War declarations take 24 hours to go active.
The More You Know The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all. |
Jaari Val'Dara
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
89
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 09:39:00 -
[693] - Quote
I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3. |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 09:46:00 -
[694] - Quote
Jaari Val'Dara wrote:I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3.
Isnt volume changed so you can jump just as long with full fuelbay as before, just at a higher cost? |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
218
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 09:52:00 -
[695] - Quote
Gaijin Lanis wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:Gaijin Lanis wrote:
As concord protection and 24 hour warning on it lifting, on top of all the other fun quirks of Crius, kinda trumps all other concerns.
Details on this bit? Unless they are changing or have changed it, CONCORD will defend player owned structures in hisec from attack unless a war is declared. War declarations take 24 hours to go active. The More You Know
I believe he might be thinking of the option ot (perhaps) lift CONCORD protection from offline towers in hi-sec. Which was, I believe, once mentioned during some fan-fest roundtable as one of the options under consideration.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1396
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 10:14:00 -
[696] - Quote
Jaari Val'Dara wrote:I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3.
They probably already have plans fro black ops changes on the tiercide pass, so might be irrelevant to make these adjustments now.
The only ships still m,issing from tiercide are Recons, T3, Black ops and capitals if memory serves me right. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
De'Veldrin
Saint's Industries Brothers of Tangra
2098
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 11:30:00 -
[697] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Gaijin Lanis wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:Gaijin Lanis wrote:
As concord protection and 24 hour warning on it lifting, on top of all the other fun quirks of Crius, kinda trumps all other concerns.
Details on this bit? Unless they are changing or have changed it, CONCORD will defend player owned structures in hisec from attack unless a war is declared. War declarations take 24 hours to go active. The More You Know I believe he might be thinking of the option ot (perhaps) lift CONCORD protection from offline towers in hi-sec. Which was, I believe, once mentioned during some fan-fest roundtable as one of the options under consideration. Thanks. I had not heard that. GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. |
De'Veldrin
Saint's Industries Brothers of Tangra
2098
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 11:32:00 -
[698] - Quote
Joraa Starkmanir wrote:Jaari Val'Dara wrote:I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3. Isnt volume changed so you can jump just as long with full fuelbay as before, just at a higher cost? Yes, they are reducing the volume of the fuel. I haven't run the math to know if the ranges will be exactly the same, but they should be close. GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 11:46:00 -
[699] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:Joraa Starkmanir wrote:Jaari Val'Dara wrote:I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3. Isnt volume changed so you can jump just as long with full fuelbay as before, just at a higher cost? Yes, they are reducing the volume of the fuel. I haven't run the math to know if the ranges will be exactly the same, but they should be close.
+50% = 150% reduced to 2/3 = 100% or the exact same as before. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
728
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 02:32:00 -
[700] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Jaari Val'Dara wrote:I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3. They probably already have plans fro black ops changes on the tiercide pass, so might be irrelevant to make these adjustments now. The only ships still m,issing from tiercide are Recons, T3, Black ops and capitals if memory serves me right. what, no shuttle pass? no love, seriously... |
|
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
17
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 00:16:00 -
[701] - Quote
I'm not going to read all the input from players on this because I really don't want to get depressed.
Highseccers and small and individual corporations will likely use smaller POSes, yes, but these groups will be getting thousands of new moons with Crius. I really think the stated reason of fear of ice devaluation due to smaller POSes is premature. Nullsec POSes are usually large for defensive purposes, and defense will be the primary consideration for POS size.
Let things happen, then make adjustments.
Also, null sec industry will rely on JFs, and the cost of their use will go up, thereby removing some of the benefit of doing industry in null sec that are supposed to be created by Crius.
Also, any changes designed to create ice demand should consider ice supply. I mine ice in high sec. The ice tends to deplete too quickly. I also do some moon mining in low sec. I notice when I am there that all the ice fields are basically empty. Also, I have toons in a CFC null sec alliance, and I notice that the ice fields in our space are almost always empty.
I think the bigger factor than smaller POSes will be the effect of an updated Rorqual on low sec and null sec mining. If the Rorqual update allows more mining to happen in low and null, then ice supply will increase. In that case it might warrant creating an increased demand. If the Rorqual update fails to change the low and null mining dynamics, I highly doubt the changes in POS sizes will result in market disturbance.
Let the other changes go live and make ice adjustments with Crius 1.5 or something. |
Katherine Raven
ALTA Industries Intergalactic Conservation Movement
151
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 17:01:00 -
[702] - Quote
Paynus Maiassus wrote:I'm not going to read all the input from players on this because I really don't want to get depressed.
Highseccers and small and individual corporations will likely use smaller POSes, yes, but these groups will be getting thousands of new moons with Crius. I really think the stated reason of fear of ice devaluation due to smaller POSes is premature. Nullsec POSes are usually large for defensive purposes, and defense will be the primary consideration for POS size.
Let things happen, then make adjustments.
Also, null sec industry will rely on JFs, and the cost of their use will go up, thereby removing some of the benefit of doing industry in null sec that are supposed to be created by Crius.
Also, any changes designed to create ice demand should consider ice supply. I mine ice in high sec. The ice tends to deplete too quickly. I also do some moon mining in low sec. I notice when I am there that all the ice fields are basically empty. Also, I have toons in a CFC null sec alliance, and I notice that the ice fields in our space are almost always empty.
I think the bigger factor than smaller POSes will be the effect of an updated Rorqual on low sec and null sec mining. If the Rorqual update allows more mining to happen in low and null, then ice supply will increase. In that case it might warrant creating an increased demand. If the Rorqual update fails to change the low and null mining dynamics, I highly doubt the changes in POS sizes will result in market disturbance.
Let the other changes go live and make ice adjustments with Crius 1.5 or something.
I know I don't plan on changing my tower size. Though I will be going down to one tower instead of two, so I'll be burning less fuel myself. While many people will be switching to small towers, there's also the possibility of way more people having a tower of any kind now that standings don't matter. Those two things will possibly even out. PI products (specifically the fuel related ones) will possibly drop in value as demand changes. But I'm in agreement with you, I'm not certain the change demand warrants changes such as this, and I don't even operate jump drive ships anymore. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
748
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 18:32:00 -
[703] - Quote
Any plans on adding implants to reduce fuel usage? |
BoBoZoBo
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
426
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 14:06:00 -
[704] - Quote
There has been a horrible derailment of the logic train here CCP. Where is the data to support this expected isotope problem? What is the point of pumping up the null economy while you castrate it's logistical ability?
New dev cycle... please use it to react quickly to real and proven changes - NOT to pre-empt the player base you continually underestimate.
Love, BoBo Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite |
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
33
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 14:26:00 -
[705] - Quote
Boooooo! |
Araneatrox
Sanctuary of Shadows
33
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 16:19:00 -
[706] - Quote
To me this does not seem to fix any problems with power projection.
What i would like to see is
"Fuel can no longer be stored in Fleet/Corp Hangars"
There we are, Power projection fixed without hurting Jump Frieghter and Black ops pilots. |
Fleet Me
Flying Space Monkeys PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
13
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 17:16:00 -
[707] - Quote
No Just No
Why make stuff that is already expencive more expencive!
I say no! |
Re'doubt
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
28
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 18:55:00 -
[708] - Quote
This change hurts the little guys and smaller entrepreneurs more then the nullsec alliances and power blocks. As one of those dudes who does their own thing more often then naught I urge you to reconsider this change. Let the industry changes hit then adjust isotope consumption. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10420
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 21:45:00 -
[709] - Quote
Paynus Maiassus wrote:Let things happen, then make adjustments. Fozzie, take note. This is the responsible way of doing things. You cannot definitively say where the isotope market is going to be after the patch, so trying to make compensatory changes is foolish.
Make the other industry changes, and if isotope costs drop too much THEN increase jump drive consumption. Not before. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
WoAz
Dark Mason Society Collateral Damage.
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 09:12:00 -
[710] - Quote
Fixing a problem that may not even exist is a terrible metric for game rebalance. You guys should adapt a wait and see approach. |
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
77
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 16:32:00 -
[711] - Quote
I remember unsubbing just when the drone region nerf hit. I subbed nearly a year later, and the change in market was huge. Sure, maybe some people liked what happened in Eve over the course of the year, but I'm convinced that nerfs impact on the mineral market is very likely why I came back to find most ships were now twice the price they were when I left.
So now with fuel prices increasing, doubled with the fact that jf cargoholds decreased...well, ships are about to get a whole lot more expensive.
Which means people are less willing to use and risk them in combat. Which mean less explosions. Not good. |
Wolf Kraft
Underground Smellroad
4
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 17:35:00 -
[712] - Quote
I haven't had an opportunity to read through the entire thread, so I apologize if the following has already been brought up.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Stimulate the isotope (and therefore ice) market to help cushion any drop in demand from players using smaller starbases after the science and industry slot changes.
Has there been any consideration that more POS's (of all sizes) are likely to be put up in High-Sec as a result of the standing restrictions being removed? To an extent, POS's represent a more concrete goal for high-sec corps in a 'Look at what we have setup and are able to maintain' kind of way. Of course, they may not all be used strictly for industrial purposes either. Some high-sec corps may just simply setup deathstars to use as a safe haven/home field advantage during wardecs (i.e. 'station guns won't shoot my war targets, but my pos will'). I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of POS's go up in the systems surrounding market hubs as well.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
The problem I see with this is that ice is a regional local resource. Individuals/corps/alliances/coalitions maintaining POS's or capitals are not necessarily using just the regional fuel source for either of those things and so they will still need to import these things, now at a much greater cost than before. Is the idea that entities will need/want to switch capitals/towers to what is locally available? Or is the expectation that there will suddenly be new ice mining fleets picking up the slack for (the increased) demand?
CCP Fozzie wrote:Although we don't expect this change to significantly impact behavior around jump drive power projection, it should at least provide a small incentive change through higher costs for moving huge capital fleets often.
The slumlord empires of new eden will be able to just simply increase the price of system rentals to compensate. Whereas a smaller entity will be forced to make sacrifices in order to continue operating. Though I'm sure that this point has already been beaten to death several times over by this point. |
Anjali Charma
Homeless but nevertheless Sexy
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 06:30:00 -
[713] - Quote
no idea how this will effect the so called "power Projection" but i kinda like the idea as it will drive up the inflation which means more profit :)
i dont bother if caps need 50% more fuel its just another bn every month and i doubt noone of the older players really care nor does big alliances as they are loaded with cash (feel free to flame on it but we have worked hard enough to have a healthy wallet and yes i did mine myself as a noob like hell to afford the learning skillbooks as there was no plex you could cash in to buy all ya want like you can do nowdays))
change for younger players or those not loaded with cash?
- not really any change for them ... they did mine to supply the 0.0 with minerals and topes and now they will continue doing same as they can just compress themself the ore / ice (yes you may flame on that one too, but every game consists of a grind at the beginning even the game called reallife you cant just get born and buy 50 appartment blocks without grinding for your first one)
changes for those living at the arse of nowhere?
- no idea really but whoever lives out there is not really depending on imports from empire its just cheaper and easier, i have lived at the arse of nowhere and there were enough indy guys producing the stuff needed. importing stuff was cheaper then buying local products because those manufacturing sold stuff at a 50% or 100% markup or more. even if alliances gave strict 25% max markup, most didnt keep within that range because greed is a beautiful thing. if the local production gets sorted and yes also tech II is possible, then theres no need to import all n everything from empire. maybe this is a chance to start building up a working infrastructure to supply itself. sure topes have to be imported but with the topes being only 0.1 m3 the increase in cost of transport is zer0.
all in all i dont see a damn thing that will change ... indy boost + the exhumer boost just happend and the refining changes / jumpdrive changes will equal out each other ... and those with caps including the big coalitions will still enjoy jumping around nopt bothering with the extra few bn's it costs to move the shiny :)
plenty changes in the game that doesnt change a damn thing but creating a "little" inflation which is good to make more profit like iRL and more lads buying plex for $_$ because they havnt a clue how to make money.
well done at least someone proved he did something for the money he gets paid and may keep his job the player base doesnt get pissed off because nothin is changing but a big love for 0.0 industrials as a bonus ccp is happy because they have had a "new" expansion and more $_$ being generated by selling PLEX.
feel free to flame ... just my 50 cent on this.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
228
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 12:23:00 -
[714] - Quote
Wolf Kraft wrote: Has there been any consideration that more POS's (of all sizes) are likely to be put up in High-Sec as a result of the standing restrictions being removed? To an extent, POS's represent a more concrete goal for high-sec corps in a 'Look at what we have setup and are able to maintain' kind of way. Of course, they may not all be used strictly for industrial purposes either. Some high-sec corps may just simply setup deathstars to use as a safe haven/home field advantage during wardecs (i.e. 'station guns won't shoot my war targets, but my pos will'). I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of POS's go up in the systems surrounding market hubs as well.
I have to point out that "standings restrictions" were not really working in preventing people putting up a tower in empire. Everyone and their dogs could get one up if they just desired before standings restrictions removal as well. All it took was a altcorp for putting that tower down. Getting standings for that altcorp was really trivial. That is one of the main reasons for removal of that restriction as everyone was circumventing it anyway. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
41
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 16:17:00 -
[715] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Paynus Maiassus wrote:Let things happen, then make adjustments. Fozzie, take note. This is the responsible way of doing things. You cannot definitively say where the isotope market is going to be after the patch, so trying to make compensatory changes is foolish. Make the other industry changes, and if isotope costs drop too much THEN increase jump drive consumption. Not before.
This.
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
79
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 14:01:00 -
[716] - Quote
People have been calling for a nerf to power projection for some time, but most don't realize that while it would appear CCP is doing nothing, Power Projection is actually going to have a death of a thousand knives. Alliance Logistics is the first victim of these changes. But those increased costs are pushed down to the average alliance member. Your ship prices are going up. Your fuel prices are going up. The cost of 'content' is going up. I cringe whenever I have to fuel up my dread now (and I am by no means poor). Can't wait to see how much more that will cost with Crius.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
583
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 01:13:00 -
[717] - Quote
Araneatrox wrote:To me this does not seem to fix any problems with power projection.
What i would like to see is
"Fuel can no longer be stored in Fleet/Corp Hangars"
There we are, Power projection fixed without hurting Jump Frieghter and Black ops pilots.
Then fleets would simply bring a jump freighter full of Helitopes to fuel their Archon blob. Limiting fuel isn't going to change the way power is projected in EVE. At least not with normal capitals (it might affect Titan bridging, but that would have an adverse effect on small alliances compared to larger alliances)
The preemptive fuel change is illogical given the new design plan of a patch every 6 weeks, if fuel prices fall off the map or skyrocket, the changes can be made either in the 1.1 patch, or the next planned cycle. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Maraner
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
292
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 23:04:00 -
[718] - Quote
What a dredful idea (pun intended).
You know there comes a point when some of these changes just end up making people feel miserable.
This is the sort of change / nerf / cost multiplier that actually makes people that have invested in caps just plain pissed off.
It wont effect the big null empires, they don't tend to individually pay for their fuel, this will be a painful hit for the small alliances and individuals.
Just no. Don't do it. **** someone else instead please.
Plus your rationale for doing this is grossly short on facts, can we see a real why that we need to do this please?
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10470
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 07:49:00 -
[719] - Quote
Any word on this? You still planning on going through with this awful idea? No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
sabastyian
Absolute Massive Destruction Circle-Of-Two
22
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 08:06:00 -
[720] - Quote
Well ccp, announcing these changes early on has already crashed the fuel market ( isotopes went up by like 300-400 isk p/u ) and you still want to make caps take 50% more? Haven't you screwed up the market enough with something that hasn't even happened yet? I mean let's consider a fuel bay for a carrier beforehand was around 12m isk, it is now 18-22m, add 50% consumption with your -33% mass and a fuel bay will go up another 5-10m. So for what used to cost 12m, it will cost 23-32m, thats an extra 11-20m. Usually changing things by 5-10% is frowned upon but accepted, changing things ( in cost, consumption, etc ) by 50-100% is downright unsettling to the market and the player-base. Reconsider these changes as you already crashed the isotope market once recently. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |