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) |
DGDragon
Rotten Kimchi Squadron Brothers of Tangra
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:15:00 -
[241] - Quote
It seems to killing Outer Indurstry is CCP's final goal... |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
207
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:15:00 -
[242] - Quote
Marketing Chairman Stalin wrote:penifSMASH wrote:Can you double the base amount of liquid ozone consumption for lighting a cyno reduce all frigate cargoholds by 200% to compensate
You want frigates to have a negative cargohold?!?! Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
13 nonames
Jumpbridg
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:16:00 -
[243] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! In the upcoming Summer release we are making a lot of changes that we expect will impact player behavior surrounding manufacturing, mining and starbase use. We see an opportunity here to make some adjustments to the way that Jump Drives consume their isotope fuel that will hit a few birds with one stone. The goals of this change are: - 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.
- Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
- 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 plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals.
To compensate for the extra isotopes that ships will need to carry, the volume of all four isotopes will be reduced by 1/3, to 0.1m3. Thanks to Resgo for some excellent feedback.The storage volume of jump bridge starbase structures will be increased by 50% since Ozone volume won't be changing. For reference, this will increase the cost of running a max skilled Rhea from Jita to RIT-A7 (jump drive transit the whole way) from ~50m isk to ~75m isk.
Open season for devs?
|
Gabriel Z
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:19:00 -
[244] - Quote
If the ISK faucets don't produce more ISK (and I don't think they ever will), the constantly rising prices of everything puts casual players at an extreme disadvantage. I simply don't have the time to grind out the ISK necessary to buy all the fits for all of the doctrines my alliance uses, plus the replacement ships, ammo, and transport costs for moving that stuff around. We don't even have large scale T2 or T3 doctrine fleets either, which I imagine costs significantly more. I barely have time to participate in the actual fleet action this game is supposed to be all about (the time eaten up by all the nonsense that goes with fleets is unbelievable and a direct result of poor ingame tool design).
I pay cash for my subscription. I'm not buying PLEX on top of that to keep myself supplied. You guys are backdooring the cash shop model and you're hoping no one will notice. |
13 nonames
Jumpbridg
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:20:00 -
[245] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Here's a crazy thought... Remove all the jump fuel from Hisec. If all the jump fuel had to be sourced from 0.0 and lowsec, and the different racial variants were only found in specific regions... the space you control would directly determine which racial jump drives you could fuel and therefore what capital ships you could field.
That would undoubtedly cause utter chaos and a massive uproar so you might have to introduce some sort of "generic" jump fuel that can be found everywhere, but has a lower efficiency e.g. you need more of it to make the same jump.
well you might want to think about what you said since each region holds its own type of ice..... |
13 nonames
Jumpbridg
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:21:00 -
[246] - Quote
Sperg Eagle Zigglesworth wrote:CCP Fozzie, the biggest idiot in EVE Online, and that's pretty hard to do. Thanks for ruining small alliance logistics.
i feel for you ccp has made nothing but **** changes this upcoming summer xpack
|
StinGer ShoGuN
Pragmatic Kernel Rat Pack Renegades
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:23:00 -
[247] - Quote
Seriously, are you trying to kill all small/mid size corps/alliances living in low sec and not involved in FW or what ??!!
If you're going on a scheme HS <-> carebearism, LS <-> FW and null <-> PvP (well, if sov warfare is PvP), say it already so that I can stop my subscriptions.
With the blogs regarding industry, it seems you are already nerfing POS in LS for those using them for doing... INDUSTRY !! Ho YEAH FOR REAL !! Now, you want to increase the fuel consumption, which will increase the fuel cost so POS are gonna be more expensive. And I'll tell you something you may have forgotten: THERE IS NO FUEL CONSUMPTION REDUCTION IN LOW BECAUSE THERE IS NO SOV !! HELLOOO !!!
So now, basically, it will cost me more to move material to low to manufacture stuff and it will cost me more to maintain POS while I won't earn more on the other hand. Tell me how as a small entity I can build up with you new system ? You literally killing all income possibilities.
CCP stop it already, think about not FW low sec players. You're seriously killing us. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
659
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:27:00 -
[248] - Quote
I thought you were seriously going to man up and do some kind of capital nerf. disappointed. |
BigSako
Aliastra Gallente Federation
100
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:27:00 -
[249] - Quote
Again, CCP is nerfing PLAYERS instead of alliances.
Quote: The goals of this change are: 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.
Please, show me a single graph that will point out how much RESEARCH POSES IN HIGHSEC consume vs. how much Capital Fleets in this game consume in isotopes.
Quote: Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
CCP failed at that for the past 4 years since I played EvE. This won't change anything, and I havent seen any changes so far made to ice belts.
Quote: 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.
This does not matter for large alliances/coalitions. They will just charge their renters more money. It impacts small corps and solo players the most.
Long story short, all arguments provided are invalid in my opinion.
Counter Example: Let's increase the cost of water, because people are going to be drinking less water next month. That's not how economy works. |
Chic Botany
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:27:00 -
[250] - Quote
So first you nerf the infinite ice which I can understand, it was pretty silly when you think about it.
Now you create extra demand from people who run cap ships?
Seriously, can you give me the email address of your dealer, I could do with some of the stuff you're smoking.
You want people to go to nullsec but now make it more expensive to live there due to higher transport costs. You want industry in nullsec but who's gonna lodge expensive BPO's in a pos that anybody can take down without wardecs You want simpler industry with the new dumbing down research idea, but dissuade nullsec industry with more expensive transport if you live a long way from empire.
Ah I see where you're going, you're listening too much to the "Wah the old players have got it so much better than I have" newbies.
|
|
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
207
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:29:00 -
[251] - Quote
Rather then have a linear jump fuel cost as we have now, why not introduce an exponential fuel cost.
This would help nerf power projection by making alliances think twice about jumping at their max range to get places quickly, however it would have a smaller impact on industry because they could make double the amount of jumps they are currently to reduce their travel costs. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
305
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:32:00 -
[252] - Quote
Gabriel Z wrote:I pay cash for my subscription. I'm not buying PLEX on top of that to keep myself supplied. You guys are backdooring the cash shop model and you're hoping no one will notice. Making you buy PLEX is kind of convoluted when they could just use the NeX.
"This summer; super-isotopes are coming to an AUR shop near you. 10% increase in jump distance and half the consumption. Put some oomph in your jumps!" |
SuPPrisE Ambraelle
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:32:00 -
[253] - Quote
SOOOOOOOOO lets make ice rare and in high demand ... that way we can reduce the scale of fights in eve, reduce the server loads, and drop costs, WINNER.
how about you stop being so cheap. buy new servers. stop trying to brake everything and make the game more enjoyable rather then a grind for everything. it will cost to undock soon.
leave it as it is. make ice belts in 0.0 perma again.
introduce a system for afkers to be booted from servers if found to be in space but inactive.
reduce cloaky campers / increase null sec ice mining . done . and increase rat size to make it not possible to go afk for the chance of being ruined by the rats.
or how about making the pos mods too cpu / power grid heavy for small poses ect and that way you wont get down scaling for posses.
with the price of plex being stupidly expensive its going to push more people out of the game. or is that what ccp wants ? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
659
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:32:00 -
[254] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:Rather then have a linear jump fuel cost as we have now, why not introduce an exponential fuel cost.
This would help nerf power projection by making alliances think twice about jumping at their max range to get places quickly, however it would have a smaller impact on industry because they could make double the amount of jumps they are currently to reduce their travel costs.
they also could just reduce jump range by 50% |
5n4keyes
Sacred Templars Fatal Ascension
93
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:33:00 -
[255] - Quote
Fantastic change! support 110% |
Shnougle Elguonhs
Dead's Prostitutes Li3 Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:34:00 -
[256] - Quote
This is ridiculous. These changes will only cause issues for small null-sec and low-sec corps. Not looking forward to this at all. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
103
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:35:00 -
[257] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone!
Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec. 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. [/list] [b]The plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals.
.
i'm sorry, but all i can say is WTF??? In which way will this fuell expense increase affect an alliance with an several hundred billions month income??? really? that's all you can came up with? "hey guys, moving a capital fleet will now cost us extra 300 mil out of our 300 billion income/month... really..."
How can't a dev understand that this will hurt the small corps/ more that big coalitions, and it's the smallest thing that can have an impact on "power projection"
Really Fozzie, i'm out of words....
|
Shonion
FREE GATES Nulli Secunda
50
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:35:00 -
[258] - Quote
5n4keyes wrote:Fantastic change! support 110%
i want from that weed Fozzie shared with you too. |
Paul Tsukaya
Tsukaya Light Industries
76
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:39:00 -
[259] - Quote
Why are people claiming this will hurt small alliances the most, when small alliances use capitals sparingly while large alliances hot drop everything in sight?
I swear every single possible capital nerf that CCP could propose will get knocked for hurting "the little guy with his carrier alt." |
viper78 Anthar
Stealth Tactics and Reconnaissance Service Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:41:00 -
[260] - Quote
By reducing the volume of isotopes you will make isotope ice compression less useful as well. I don't think all the math has been done for a change like this. Are you going to reduce the volume of compressed isotope ice as well? |
|
Tam Althor
lll tempered sea bass Brothers of Tangra
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:45:00 -
[261] - Quote
Paul Tsukaya wrote:Why are people claiming this will hurt small alliances the most, when small alliances use capitals sparingly while large alliances hot drop everything in sight?
I swear every single possible capital nerf that CCP could propose will get knocked for hurting "the little guy with his carrier alt."
It's going to hurt the smaller groups more because they rely on a very small number of members to move things from 0.0 to highsec and back. They don't have a warchest of isotopes stored for use and the isk to refill the warchest whenever needed. |
Pah Cova
Made in Portugal S.A.
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:45:00 -
[262] - Quote
Have you CCP guys going nuts? Did you recently came to Portugal get any kind of graduation like our politics? Are you tell small corps to go away play another game?
50% ?
And what are we get in exchange to compensate that 50% extra cost? From 3 years ago until now, CCP are making everything to take money out our pocket in every expansion you release, and still on going to take more.
What are we get in exchange to compensate that? Reducing the ice weight does not compensate our wallets, can you think in something better? What about increase the anomalies number and the bounty-¦s in 50%? What about ice anomalies for every system in null sec?
For me this particular decision worth a red card, just because it will affect in much, as allways smaller corps. |
Larodil
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:48:00 -
[263] - Quote
So let's get a discussion from CCP on why they feel this is a necessary change.
What possible benefit does a Nulsec corp/alliance get with this change? What possible benefit does a Highsec corp/alliance get with this change?
This is either a change that has been very much not thought out in advance, or one that is targeted at a specific group of people to make things more difficult for them.
Changes to the game should (in theory) have some benefit other than just "lets press this button that sucks the air out of the tank and see what it does to the mice inside."
I'd like to see what in the world the "benefit" is to the players that are actually paying CCP for this game. |
Crashtec
Unforeseen Consequences. The Unthinkables
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:49:00 -
[264] - Quote
Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
this is stupid... since only 1 type of isotope in 0.0 is availaible this change is going to **** everyone ... |
Dave Stark
5192
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:51:00 -
[265] - Quote
i don't know if any one has stated the obvious but i'm going to state it;
how does this not massively arse **** the "little guy"? big entities benefit from being able to throw cash around and not bat an eyelid, the little guy doesn't. |
Tam Althor
lll tempered sea bass Brothers of Tangra
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:51:00 -
[266] - Quote
Pah Cova wrote:Have you CCP guys going nuts?
What are we get in exchange to compensate that? Reducing the ice weight does not compensate our wallets, can you think in something better? What about increase the anomalies number and the bounty-¦s in 50%? What about ice anomalies for every system in null sec?
For me this particular decision worth a red card, just because it will affect in much, as allways smaller corps.
Hell, it would help to cut the ice respawn timer by 50% to 2 hours or even better to 1 hour |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
300
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:54:00 -
[267] - Quote
Honest question, how long have you been thinking of this before posting this devblog? I'm guessing it's a "this week" thing, right? |
Jack Kennedy
Dambusters 617 Sq Northern Associates.
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:54:00 -
[268] - Quote
Paul Tsukaya wrote:Why are people claiming this will hurt small alliances the most, when small alliances use capitals sparingly while large alliances hot drop everything in sight?
I swear every single possible capital nerf that CCP could propose will get knocked for hurting "the little guy with his carrier alt."
you clearly have no idea what your talking about, enough said on that one. |
Paul Tsukaya
Tsukaya Light Industries
76
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:57:00 -
[269] - Quote
Tam Althor wrote:Paul Tsukaya wrote:Why are people claiming this will hurt small alliances the most, when small alliances use capitals sparingly while large alliances hot drop everything in sight?
I swear every single possible capital nerf that CCP could propose will get knocked for hurting "the little guy with his carrier alt." It's going to hurt the smaller groups more because they rely on a very small number of members to move things from 0.0 to highsec and back. They don't have a warchest of isotopes stored for use and the isk to refill the warchest whenever needed. Are you honestly suggesting that this will paralyze small alliance jf services?
That's baloney. All they will have to do is raise their prices to compensate, the same as large alliance jf services. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
457
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:57:00 -
[270] - Quote
The primary point of this change isn't to nerf power projection; it's to increase usage of topes following a massive draw down of POS in highsec. The costs just aren't enough to really care much about; I'm not sure why you're all complaining. This is coming from an individual who refuses to allow his alliance to pay for his topes, too -- it's just not enough money to be worth the roles hassle. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
|
|
|
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 |