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 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
405
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:48:00 -
[241] - Quote
If the intent is truly to make null sec less of a big blob and give smaller entities a chance to set up their own independent empires, then you need to redistribute the resources across space better. Give me the option to get more than one kind of ice in a region. Give me the ability to get a good distribution of salvage and moon minerals without having to import everything. Then make it really hard to import, export, and project power. That will make it more viable to divide null sec up into a bunch of independent city states vice the two huge power blocs we currently have.
Nerfing all the transportation systems before making these changes is putting the cart before the horse. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11548
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:48:00 -
[242] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here.
Oh you can get a great deal more tank now, you just have to sacrifice that cargo bay. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:49:00 -
[243] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Calling now for Burn Jita 3.5 in September. Let's make it semiannual now that freighters will probably die much easier now with higher ship values for extra goodness.
It think they should do something quite the opposite. Instead of making more publicity to the game, let it stagnate. Less new players, less income for ccp. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
106
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:50:00 -
[244] - Quote
I don't know why it isn't absolutely blatant now to CCP that anyone who actually knows anything about or takes place in alliance logistics (aka is not just a high sec pubbie) DOES NOT WANT THIS CHANGE. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11548
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:51:00 -
[245] - Quote
nahjustwarpin wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Calling now for Burn Jita 3.5 in September. Let's make it semiannual now that freighters will probably die much easier now with higher ship values for extra goodness. It think they should do something quite the opposite. Instead of making more publicity to the game, let it stagnate.
Nah, we will just torch more overstuffed freighters. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
beerthief
Templar Construction Battalion Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:52:00 -
[246] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
CCP Fozzie wrote: and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
one of these is not like the other |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:53:00 -
[247] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price?
except i would say freighters didnt need improvements. Nor does ganking need a nerf. Things were/are in good shape. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:54:00 -
[248] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly.
I would agree with you if this was actually what CCP was doing. But the order of changes is backwards. First, the components for 0.0 industry need to be available. That is, resources for rigs and t2 production and fuel. All of those are heavily regional, as you might be aware. If it was possible to produce effectively in 0.0 I'd be doing it already. Spending 120M per jf roundtrip plus two accounts worth of cynoalts is kind of expensive. Imports won't cease or reduce by raising costs for importing when it is literally impossible to replace importing with production.
Regional you say? Something you might want to fight over?
Yeah, that's not something CCP have directly done in the past
I mean, you are right, but you're right because CCP are taking baby-steps rather than laying out every change at once. On a longer timeline, nothing you are mentioning is a problem that can't be addressed, and some are ultimately good things if you see them another way.
Kat Ayclism wrote:You know who cares about my eve-o likes the least? Me. It's not ad-hominem when you explain why someone is wrong, friend, so toss out your Fallacy of the Day calendar because it clearly didn't explain that one well enough for you.
They eliminated the need for compression-importing via modules and shifted it to compression importing via raw materials. Still importing.
The industry changes provide benefits to production within null, that does nothing to the importing aspect. It is a driver to get people into null. This driver is then effectively neutered by the other two changes you listed. They're big sticks smacking the ever-living **** out of those same people they are trying to draw to null. They add needless expense and difficulty to producing in null, which is going to make it a very hard sell to drag anyone that might shift to null.
You see what I did there? I didn't just make blind assertions, I explained out the hows and whys of what I'm saying- unlike you, who chose to stop simply at "this change totally means this, you're stupid," while also ignoring the content of the post you were responding to, specifically: "And they've stated that there will be little or no need for importing where? And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?"
You know... the entire meat of the post.
I also didn't have to attack your affiliations to make my point- I addressed your argument, rather than attacking you. If only there was some fallacy I could point to...
Say, you didn't throw that Fallacy of the Day calendar out yet, did you?
You're seriously trying to run to the moral high-ground after:
Quote:Kat Ayclism wrote:These changes are ******* stupid. Can you stop just changing things to change things? It does not validate your work to be screwing up the things that are right when there's other ships that actually need the rebalancing efforts.
Also, again these changes are at cross odds with the supposed intent to make localized production more possible in null- YOU STILL WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPORT/EXPORT.
So your solution? LOL EVERYTHING USES MORE FUEL AND ALL THE JFS CAN HOLD LESS AND ARE LESS AGILE
Stop swinging around like a 5yo in the dark with a baseball bat. This isn't quality balancing, it's dogshit [...] we'll wait while you catch up with the rest of the class [...] While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate [...] your point here is still dipshitted and wrong [...] your dulled mental facilities
Top lel. That's some pretty revisionist thinking there.
The problem is, when you repeatedly say such openly naive things as "needless expense" without conflating that to being the same thing as a conflict driver, I know the problem is you don't want to change, yet see the need to do so. Compression-importing doesn't replace compression-importing via 425mm railguns and you know it.
When we accept that yes, CCP are using a stick, we can also see that CCP are using a carrot. Here, you said it yourself: "The industry changes provide benefits to production within null".
Soooooooooo....
We have added costs and effort of importing, as well as benefits to doing it in nullsec. What does that give us?
Your argument is nonsensical not because you are stupid, but because you are knowingly arguing a position out of self interest, rather than what is actually happening. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:54:00 -
[249] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here. Oh you can get a great deal more tank now, you just have to sacrifice that cargo bay.
Which doesn't make the ship any better at all. |
Dave Stark
5675
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:56:00 -
[250] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here. Oh you can get a great deal more tank now, you just have to sacrifice that cargo bay. Which doesn't make the ship any better at all.
I find that functioning ships are infinitely better than wrecks. can't board a wreck. |
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:56:00 -
[251] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly.
I would agree with you if this was actually what CCP was doing. But the order of changes is backwards. First, the components for 0.0 industry need to be available. That is, resources for rigs and t2 production and fuel. All of those are heavily regional, as you might be aware. If it was possible to produce effectively in 0.0 I'd be doing it already. Spending 120M per jf roundtrip plus two accounts worth of cynoalts is kind of expensive. Imports won't cease or reduce by raising costs for importing when it is literally impossible to replace importing with production.
Not only is the materials for industry region based (somewhat) , in null you can't always get to the other regions. You can't dock and you sure as hell can't slow boat a freighter through gates. Null will never have the production of high sec. It can't. Logistics won't allow it.
I have talked to tons of 'old timers" with 10's of billions (likely hundreds) stuck in stations they can't dock in anymore. You can't always get all your stuff out when your station goes into reinforce, especially not if you have a large industry operation.
Eve is a sand box but we are constrained by the game rules CCP gives us. We choose to build in high sec. This does nothing to convince major industrialist to move 100 bil in bpo's and material to null and start building. Instead we will just eat higher overhead and goods in null will goods will be even higher still.
Pvpers are always whining about the markup in null..well congrats..you got your wish..it will go higher.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11551
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:59:00 -
[252] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Which doesn't make the ship any better at all, but I guess that is the point behind the changes.
Welcome to what we have been telling people wanting rigs for years.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
602
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:59:00 -
[253] - Quote
beerthief wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
CCP Fozzie wrote: and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
one of these is not like the other
The latter quote is about jump freighters, the first quote about normal freighters. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5063
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:59:00 -
[254] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:I don't know why it isn't absolutely blatant now to CCP that anyone who actually knows anything about or takes place in alliance logistics (aka is not just a high sec pubbie) DOES NOT WANT THIS CHANGE.
You can thank all of the clueless highsec people who have been screaming for a lowslot or rigs on freighters for 2 years now. We warned them that freighters would end up being worse but they refused to listen. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
72
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:59:00 -
[255] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: I mean, you are right, but you're right because CCP are taking baby-steps rather than laying out every change at once. On a longer timeline, nothing you are mentioning is a problem that can't be addressed, and some are ultimately good things if you see them another way.
I'd be on board with the changes to the JF if the order of changes was different.
Also, you're putting way too much trust in CCP's ability to iterate. They have an absolutely dreadful track record. *cough*Dominion*cough* |
beerthief
Templar Construction Battalion Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:01:00 -
[256] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:beerthief wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
CCP Fozzie wrote: and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
one of these is not like the other The latter quote is about jump freighters, the first quote about normal freighters.
you are correct, i apologise for my error. |
Zakarumit CZ
Zakarum Industries Exiliar Syndicate
182
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:01:00 -
[257] - Quote
Althought its nice to see freighters to use rigs and I think the increase size of caps and containers is an OK adjustment as well as lowering cargo, I am not really satisfied with the lowered HPs for freighters. They are already easy pickings and mostly sitting ducks with almost no chance for defence against bumping and ganging. Those changes mean that HP or resist rigs are almost a must, which doesnt give people the choice they wanted with the rigs addition CCP should keep freigher HPs as they are. |
Joshua Trader
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:01:00 -
[258] - Quote
As someone who worked his ass off for months to buy and fly an ARK I for one am happy with the changes. At least now that they are making the game literally ****, I wont have to swap between star citizen and eve once it comes out.
There is no way any freighter needs a nerf. They all need their HP buffed 200%. I should be able to carry at least 2b isk through high sec without worry of gank. You know how easy it is to put 1b isk in a freighter with the prices these days?
GJ CCP STAR CITIZEN IS LOOKING BETTER EVERYDAY!
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
407
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:01:00 -
[259] - Quote
beerthief wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
CCP Fozzie wrote: and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.
one of these is not like the other
The first quote is about Freighters. The second quote is about Jump Freighters. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6295
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:03:00 -
[260] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:I don't know why it isn't absolutely blatant now to CCP that anyone who actually knows anything about or takes place in alliance logistics (aka is not just a high sec pubbie) DOES NOT WANT THIS CHANGE. You can thank all of the clueless highsec people who have been screaming for a lowslot or rigs on freighters for 2 years now. We warned them that freighters would end up being worse but they refused to listen.
Instead, all of them kept telling me I was just trying to keep them from getting what they deserved.
Well, in a manner of speaking, I guess that's true. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
|
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3135
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:04:00 -
[261] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: I mean, you are right, but you're right because CCP are taking baby-steps rather than laying out every change at once. On a longer timeline, nothing you are mentioning is a problem that can't be addressed, and some are ultimately good things if you see them another way.
I'd be on board with the changes to the JF if the order of changes was different. Also, you're putting way too much trust in CCP's ability to iterate. They have an absolutely dreadful track record. *cough*Dominion*cough* This is certainly valid criticism of what it seems CCP are trying to do, but I'm not prepared to be a raving opponent to all change because I can't guarantee it will always work out best for me. If anything, in this case I am rather hopeful of good systemic changes, as CCP are definitely slow-cooking these changes.
I'd rather support the changes than adopt a very defeatist "CCP won't get it right, so why change anything" style position. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
346
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:04:00 -
[262] - Quote
Fozzie strikes again
keep ******* ships up bro. never stop. never change. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5063
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:05:00 -
[263] - Quote
Joshua Trader wrote:As someone who worked his ass off for months to buy and fly an ARK I for one am happy with the changes. At least now that they are making the game literally ****, I wont have to swap between star citizen and eve once it comes out.
There is no way any freighter needs a nerf. They all need their HP buffed 200%. I should be able to carry at least 2b isk through high sec without worry of gank. You know how easy it is to put 1b isk in a freighter with the prices these days?
GJ CCP STAR CITIZEN IS LOOKING BETTER EVERYDAY!
Have fun with the vaporware that stole your money. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6295
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:05:00 -
[264] - Quote
Oh my God... I just realized.
They released these changes to distract from the UI thread. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:07:00 -
[265] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/b4obsew.png
technically,all freighters are now pretty much the same in capacity. You can have better cargo or same cargo with very little improvement of hull HP with 1 hull rig...
JF are .... well ... plug the cargo rig because you d'ont have really the choice... As you don't change rig often !!! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21825
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:07:00 -
[266] - Quote
Zakarumit CZ wrote:Those changes mean that HP or resist rigs are almost a must, which doesnt give people the choice they wanted with the rigs addition They're a must if you want a stronger ship. Choosing one comes at the cost of a slower ship that carries less. You can also choose one that carries more GÇö preferably low-value goods GÇö but at the cost of being weaker and slower. You can also choose to be faster, but at the cost ofGǪ actually, it doesn't cost that much. You'll have so-so capacity and HP, though so I suppose you can consider that a GÇ£costGÇ¥ of sort when compared to the other options.
So sure you can choose. Your choice just needs to align with what it is you intend to carry and how you intend to fly the ship. If anything, the complaint is that you have to choose, or you'll end up with a ship that is strictly worse in every way than the current setups.
It's kind of funny, reallyGǪ normally, people are futzing over the balanced between the jack-of-all-trades is and the master-of-one. Here, people chose to champion a jack-of-one-trade over a master-of-all.
Joshua Trader wrote:There is no way any freighter needs a nerf. Agreed, but the only way to avoid one is to not give them any fitting capabilities. They don't really need a buff either since it's fairly easy to remain a worthless target. 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. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1505
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:10:00 -
[267] - Quote
Joshua Trader wrote:As someone who worked his ass off for months to buy and fly an ARK I for one am happy with the changes. At least now that they are making the game literally ****, I wont have to swap between star citizen and eve once it comes out.
There is no way any freighter needs a nerf. They all need their HP buffed 200%. I should be able to carry at least 2b isk through high sec without worry of gank. You know how easy it is to put 1b isk in a freighter with the prices these days?
GJ CCP STAR CITIZEN IS LOOKING BETTER EVERYDAY!
its exactly that 'cake and eat it too' thinking that got u here. well done. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
xXchochiXx
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:11:00 -
[268] - Quote
So this put me off buying a jf :( a lowslot for dcu would be nice maybe a hi slot for cloak but this radical ideas but more practical |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:12:00 -
[269] - Quote
CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit ! |
Dagonett
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:13:00 -
[270] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Jump Freighters currently are over powered and you guys know it. This change is a slight nerf and still leaves the ship incredibly useful.
HOW ARE THEY OP? |
|
|
|
|
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 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |