Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
Bayonnefrog
Hedion University Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 19:22:00 -
[301] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Doug Dannger wrote:This Dev Blog should be renamed Eve Online: A Eulogy
You're taking a decade of, while not perfect, functioning mechanics and throwing them away just to change it.
There has been a decade of iteration on the current system. There are countless players who've made websites that take an intimidating structure and break it down into easy to swallow chunks. There are calculators for every aspect of manufacturing, and blogs to explain their mechanics. People were proud to call the game spreadsheets online, and it was a point of pride to show friends what you've made, or a nice surprise when friends gave you yet another tool to help you along. Players also gained a sense of accomplishment knowing that after some study, work, and often some mistakes, that you had conquered the beast that was industry in Eve Online.
Does anyone really think that the average industrialist, new or old, will be better off losing all of these out of game features, that will probably never be updated again to the scale we have now in favor of this new system? Do players really thing they can depend on CCP to create these tools? The only thing that needed to be changed was the UI.
Do we have another decade to spend on players to create sites and guides to muddle their way through CCP's perplexing scaling mechanics? Will anyone take the time to update them? Does CCP even have a handle on their own new mechanics? A lot has changed since it was first proposed, most of it because the people who thought of it, did not think the entire thing out. They showed their massive disconnect with their player base when they thought that people wouldn't take the time to online and offline dozens of modules in a POS just to save some isk. When they were confronted with the realization of how far people will go in this game, they decided to scrap the entire idea all together and pass it off on some lame excuse that it was difficult. They changed batch costs, because they couldn't even articulate with any degree of success on how it worked.
Then for me it was the blueprint ME/PE shaft. I've spent months researching blueprints to obscene levels to gain a very small advantage. Just like people spend a month to train skills that give guns 2% better damage, or reduce the sig radius on their interceptor another little bit. This game is based on diminishing returns, and celebrated those who were devoted enough to spend that much extra time to gain a little advantage. The prints weren't that much better, but when it came time to sell your copies in Jita, mine were the ones that sold because I had taken that extra time to make mine stand out among the crowd. Now, someone who's researched their Drake print for a month, ends up with the same print you've spent 6 months or more to research.
That's only the mechanics, the entire roll out of this patch has been insulting. One team wants to raise the barrier to entry, the other seems fundamentally against it. There is no cohesion it seems at the highest levels. The explanations on changes were confusing at best, spread out, and all discussion was lost in a sea of noise on threads where very little was accomplished. To think that the original plan was to put these changes in over a month ago just shows how little serious thought has gone into this change. Then to try and sneak in a ridiculous skill change that anyone with any kind of grasp on their player base would never have attempted just again shows the amount of thought that these changes have received. And then to tell their players, who have long since grown tired of the meme, that it would be looked into GÇ£soonGÇ¥
This attempt to create Hello Kitty Noob Twitch Space Adventure Super Fun Time Online is not only going to alienate a lot of older players, but raise the barrier of entry to newer players as they will suddenly find themselves devoid of the knowledge that was meticulously crafted by devoted players over the last decade. They are also going to be forced to disperse themselves around the galaxy just to get a decent manufacturing price, and then forced to move on once again when the price gets high. A new player will gravitate to a hub to build if simply for the fact they canGÇÖt afford a freighter. I hate to draw real life analogy, but Ford isnGÇÖt forced to move their plant every month to remain competitive, theyGÇÖre forced to ship their product to where it can be sold, as industry should be.
I can understand attempting to justify one's job with the ever present threat of constant layoffs over your head, but I fear that your attempt to seem busy has doomed us all.
And no, you cannot have my stuff. this is an awful lot of words to say "WAHHHH THE STATUS QUO IS CHANGED" you made awful decisions, congratulations
+1
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 19:24:00 -
[302] - Quote
Pheusia wrote: The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining.
I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected.
High sec production is only done by privileged high sec people :/...
first one for me.
|
El Zylcho
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 19:26:00 -
[303] - Quote
Pheusia wrote: The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining.
I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected.
Again, no facts, just off-putting Orwellian mention to race and privilege. Unfortunately, in the absence of something objective like data, some of the people who decide NOT to renew subscriptions may do so on the assumption your view is the CCP view. Not having used a measure built on, at least the perception of consensus, you might be taken for the CCP position. There certainly isn't enough to rebut the perception in terms of rationales presented.
Feel free to put up some facts which you measured. But it's a moot point. And, it's unfortunate the really cool stuff that is coming out is subdued in the face of wiping out the gains achieved fairly by existing game logic in terms of money spent and time.
Again, I'd suggest improving the process. |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
148
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 19:51:00 -
[304] - Quote
Pheusia wrote:El Zylcho wrote:Pheusia wrote: But hi-sec privilige ends tomorrow afternoon.
So again, my point is is about building consensus. No case other than your hypothetical one has been made or advanced that a disadvantage exists in numbers. High sec is full of risk, just ask any miner. Why are there no industrial alliances left? There used to be - game changes make high sec a misnomer like "jumbo shrimp". What was offered up was a discussion about a distribution of population on the China server and a passing remark about a dev wanting industry to be less profitable and another comment about forcing people who favor solo play styles to cooperate. It is *absolutely* the prerogative for the business to make whatever business decisions it wants to make. But this in no way demonstrates a desire to keep a company profitable nor does it prudently pose a question such as "How do we create more opportunities in high sec to distribute player populations, encourage cooperative play styles or match risk to profit"? Your example is largely irrelevant to the points I was making because I was talking about using a measure, an actual measure to evaluate a feedback and consensus building so developers are not stuck in political discussions AFTER the fact. Yes, CCP has survived the implementation of rule changes in the game. My point is, it can do it better, meaning more profitably. It is in its interest to factor in consensus building understanding various studies that have been done on this very topic. I did not argue for absolutely no loss of subscriptions but a way to measure it AND even more important to demonstrate to any disinterested third party (say hypothetical investors) that measurable value is delivered by developers who follow a logic based on the principle of being profitable. Your oversimplification lends weight to my observation that CSMs nor even developers alone can navigate the complexity that Eve is. Soft power in the form of consensus gives development efforts a clear way to ring the bell. The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining. I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected.
I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today? |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
503
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 20:06:00 -
[305] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today?
20% ?
lol
its gonna be more. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
148
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 20:17:00 -
[306] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today?
20% ? lol its gonna be more.
I wonder how it will affect the price of PLEX? |
Neil Peert
Thee Almitee Ones The Unforgiven Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 20:36:00 -
[307] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:Kusum Fawn wrote:GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today?
20% ? lol its gonna be more. I wonder how it will affect the price of PLEX?
your plex is fine, it could change it to a Wreck, |
Pheusia
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
103
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 21:04:00 -
[308] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:Pheusia wrote:El Zylcho wrote:Pheusia wrote: But hi-sec privilige ends tomorrow afternoon.
So again, my point is is about building consensus. No case other than your hypothetical one has been made or advanced that a disadvantage exists in numbers. High sec is full of risk, just ask any miner. Why are there no industrial alliances left? There used to be - game changes make high sec a misnomer like "jumbo shrimp". What was offered up was a discussion about a distribution of population on the China server and a passing remark about a dev wanting industry to be less profitable and another comment about forcing people who favor solo play styles to cooperate. It is *absolutely* the prerogative for the business to make whatever business decisions it wants to make. But this in no way demonstrates a desire to keep a company profitable nor does it prudently pose a question such as "How do we create more opportunities in high sec to distribute player populations, encourage cooperative play styles or match risk to profit"? Your example is largely irrelevant to the points I was making because I was talking about using a measure, an actual measure to evaluate a feedback and consensus building so developers are not stuck in political discussions AFTER the fact. Yes, CCP has survived the implementation of rule changes in the game. My point is, it can do it better, meaning more profitably. It is in its interest to factor in consensus building understanding various studies that have been done on this very topic. I did not argue for absolutely no loss of subscriptions but a way to measure it AND even more important to demonstrate to any disinterested third party (say hypothetical investors) that measurable value is delivered by developers who follow a logic based on the principle of being profitable. Your oversimplification lends weight to my observation that CSMs nor even developers alone can navigate the complexity that Eve is. Soft power in the form of consensus gives development efforts a clear way to ring the bell. The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining. I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected. I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today?
eh, we've survived larger shifts |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
421
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 21:14:00 -
[309] - Quote
oh no not 20% |
Sir HyperChrist
Persnickety Pilots
55
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 21:20:00 -
[310] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Sir HyperChrist wrote: *snip* more than one way to fix buildtimes, without changing the "arbitrary" balance of invention.
my 2 cents....
Yes, the bottleneck determines the throughput. The changes there were not to manage throughput, they were to make the numbers more consistent and structured. *snip* If you've got a specific reason in mind as to why the build time of T2 frigates actually matters from a wider balance perspective, I'm all ears :) *snip* Here specifically is the post containing all the (I believe final) rank data: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4683055#post4683055We agree that communication of some changes has not been sufficiently clear and we're hoping to improve on this in future. No, we're not planning to make significant further adjustments to ranks, based on our current understanding of the relationships within the data. We are specifically seeking to avoid replicating old inconsistencies in the new system.
I missed that link, csv-files don't really invite much scrutiny from me, especially when I'm very busy correcting dutch A-level final exams :) June wasn't a month with time to spare.
But then again, would my input have mattered more if i'd have given it back then? A facro of 0.25 for buildjobs on T2 ships wouldn't add game mechanics that don't yet exist, and it would make th resulting production times more consistent to what they are now.
How it will influence the world "wider balance" as a total after patch noone can predict for sure, and I can't really say much of that too.
Likely it'll generate more market for inventers, and also the margin will rise because of that. But because the ships are cheap compared to other T2 ships, and will require the same amount of attention, inventers won't make the difference completely, so margins will rise too. T2 ships in general will become more expensive, and thus less accessible. If you add the recent ship rebalancing that made the T1 ships quite a bit better compared to T2, this world will be focused on cheaper ships. This will make the world poorer imo.
now it's too late to change anything. Please keep an eye on markets for T2 ships, and remember you just nerfed T2 ship builders 50% on materials and 65-75% on buildtime.
Above all evaluate if this patch really made industry more transparent and easy to access. I'm not sure that it will...... |
|
Astro Andy
The Reynard Project
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 21:23:00 -
[311] - Quote
Pristine White Glaze doesn't look right in the patch notes...
1 unit of White Glaze now yields 69 Heavy Water, 35 Liquid Ozone, 414 Nitrogen Isotopes and 1 Strontium Clathrates 1 unit of Pristine White Glaze now yields 69 Heavy Water, 35 Liquid Ozone, 483 Nitrogen Isotopes and 1 Strontium Clathrates
Compared with all the others that look like:
1 unit of Blue Ice now yields 69 Heavy Water, 35 Liquid Ozone, 414 Oxygen Isotopes and 1 Strontium Clathrates 1 unit of Thick Blue Ice now yields 104 Heavy Water, 55 Liquid Ozone, 483 Oxygen Isotopes and 1 Strontium Clathrates
Might want to add the word "Gleaming" to one of the types of Spodumain as well... |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
148
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 21:33:00 -
[312] - Quote
Pheusia wrote:GreasyCarl Semah wrote:Pheusia wrote:El Zylcho wrote:Pheusia wrote: But hi-sec privilige ends tomorrow afternoon.
So again, my point is is about building consensus. No case other than your hypothetical one has been made or advanced that a disadvantage exists in numbers. High sec is full of risk, just ask any miner. Why are there no industrial alliances left? There used to be - game changes make high sec a misnomer like "jumbo shrimp". What was offered up was a discussion about a distribution of population on the China server and a passing remark about a dev wanting industry to be less profitable and another comment about forcing people who favor solo play styles to cooperate. It is *absolutely* the prerogative for the business to make whatever business decisions it wants to make. But this in no way demonstrates a desire to keep a company profitable nor does it prudently pose a question such as "How do we create more opportunities in high sec to distribute player populations, encourage cooperative play styles or match risk to profit"? Your example is largely irrelevant to the points I was making because I was talking about using a measure, an actual measure to evaluate a feedback and consensus building so developers are not stuck in political discussions AFTER the fact. Yes, CCP has survived the implementation of rule changes in the game. My point is, it can do it better, meaning more profitably. It is in its interest to factor in consensus building understanding various studies that have been done on this very topic. I did not argue for absolutely no loss of subscriptions but a way to measure it AND even more important to demonstrate to any disinterested third party (say hypothetical investors) that measurable value is delivered by developers who follow a logic based on the principle of being profitable. Your oversimplification lends weight to my observation that CSMs nor even developers alone can navigate the complexity that Eve is. Soft power in the form of consensus gives development efforts a clear way to ring the bell. The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining. I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected. I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today? eh, we've survived larger shifts
Not without a rain of sweet tears from heaven you haven't, which is the part I rather enjoy. Make sure to rat for three more hours so you can fill my carebear wallet. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3280
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 22:12:00 -
[313] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: My ME3 Thanatos and Archon BPO's will be upgraded from ME3 to ME4, which will STILL translate to an 8% waste BPO (same transformation for ME3 and Me4), and my Moros will be upgraded from ME6 to ME7 under the existing system, which I believes translates to the same crappy BPO under the new system.
nope while in research, the ME3 will transform into ME8%, then you will get the one additional level you were researching: me9% while in research, the ME6 will transform into ME9%, then you will get the one additional level you were researching: me10% i, too, assumed the transfer would happen the way you assumed it would (that the end product transforms once its done), but greyscale's earlier posts (which one would think you read religiously) make it clear the transformation happens as I said above, probably because it's easier from a technical standpoint. once i found that out i had to cancel some research jobs and reinstall because they were suboptimal (i had figured there was no point researching ME on my me5 nag bpos, so i might as well get some TE: now, i'm a few months behind schedule for my glorious ME10% nag bpos) so you'll get the perfect moros bpo you always dreamed of and none of us dirty nullsec cartels will have a better bpo than you do dinsy
Citation please re: transformation as you described it. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
577
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 22:17:00 -
[314] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Citation please re: transformation as you described it.
it is this very thread you are posting in:
CCP Greyscale wrote: We take whatever level the blueprint was at when the job started, convert that, and then when the job finishes add however many levels (capped at level 10) it was in research for.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4816392#post4816392
he notes the math error in that post and posts to correct and confirm that ME5 in research to ME6 when patch hits goes to ME10%:
CCP Greyscale wrote:Oh, yeah, sorry. ME10. I picked from the available options, didn't check the math on the second one
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4817233#post4817233
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3280
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 23:22:00 -
[315] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Citation please re: transformation as you described it.
it is this very thread you are posting in: CCP Greyscale wrote: We take whatever level the blueprint was at when the job started, convert that, and then when the job finishes add however many levels (capped at level 10) it was in research for.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4816392#post4816392he notes the math error in that post and posts to correct and confirm that ME5 in research to ME6 when patch hits goes to ME10%: CCP Greyscale wrote:Oh, yeah, sorry. ME10. I picked from the available options, didn't check the math on the second one https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4817233#post4817233
Cool, I missed that.
That one gift to all players still does not alter the fact that this overhaul is an unmitigated disaster for high sec players, low sec cap manufacturers, with yet another massive wealth transfer to the null sec cartels, who architected this whole thing in the first place. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
577
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 00:28:00 -
[316] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Cool, I missed that.
That one gift to all players still does not alter the fact that this overhaul is an unmitigated disaster for high sec players, low sec cap manufacturers, with yet another massive wealth transfer to the null sec cartels, who architected this whole thing in the first place.
do you think that if you could post repeatedly in this thread and miss the three greyscale posts about that change (one over a foot long, hard to miss), perhaps you aren't giving it as much thought as it deserves |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3281
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 02:01:00 -
[317] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Cool, I missed that.
That one gift to all players still does not alter the fact that this overhaul is an unmitigated disaster for high sec players, low sec cap manufacturers, with yet another massive wealth transfer to the null sec cartels, who architected this whole thing in the first place.
do you think that if you could post repeatedly in this thread and miss the three greyscale posts about that change (one over a foot long, hard to miss), perhaps you aren't giving it as much thought as it deserves
Um...no.
I have spent a great deal of time on Singularity in the past weeks, when it was up. I read Greyscale's manifesto of hatred of high sec that he posted years ago, and was resurrected on one of the blogger's posts. (Think it was Noizy Gamer)
So yeah, I have given this a lot more thought than the typical null sec propagandist, though I agree no where near the thought given by the null sec cartel industrialists who benefit so hugely from this, and no doubt all ready have incredibly extensive and detailed plans ready to implement as soon as the Crius release is stable. |
Laughable Xhosa Girl
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 03:21:00 -
[318] - Quote
on the EVE of this long awaited industry revamp I'd just like to thank all the posters that helped make this happen
YES WE CAN! |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
421
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 03:25:00 -
[319] - Quote
Laughable Xhosa Girl wrote:on the EVE of this long awaited industry revamp I'd just like to thank all the posters that helped make this happen
YES WE CAN!
---
i also want to pour one out for the posters who didn't make it all the way. rip weaslior same |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
294
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 06:28:00 -
[320] - Quote
What happened to Weaslior? |
|
Pearl Canopus
28
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 08:32:00 -
[321] - Quote
aaahm... and what's about corp standing related productions taxes at NPC stations...?
Thanks for your wall of text without any progress in the topic. But I'd really like to know. ;) |
Scarlet Bear
Alliance Mining Operations Command Space Warriors
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 08:37:00 -
[322] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Citation please re: transformation as you described it.
it is this very thread you are posting in: CCP Greyscale wrote: We take whatever level the blueprint was at when the job started, convert that, and then when the job finishes add however many levels (capped at level 10) it was in research for.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4816392#post4816392he notes the math error in that post and posts to correct and confirm that ME5 in research to ME6 when patch hits goes to ME10%: CCP Greyscale wrote:Oh, yeah, sorry. ME10. I picked from the available options, didn't check the math on the second one https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4817233#post4817233 Cool, I missed that. That one gift to all players still does not alter the fact that this overhaul is an unmitigated disaster for high sec players, low sec cap manufacturers, with yet another massive wealth transfer to the null sec cartels, who architected this whole thing in the first place.
noticed even the dev say very little in the comments, |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 13:09:00 -
[323] - Quote
You guys said one thing early on with the ME and TE and did another. That's shady. Originally you said ME and TE were going to scale evenly i.e. ME was going to be 2% per level and now I see ME 1 being 5% and 6,7,8 and 9 being no improvement what so ever. Shady I tell you shady. |
Wilfrid DelUnzano
Enedwaith Org.
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 13:38:00 -
[324] - Quote
One thing interesting is that (i may have missed it trhrough the thread) changing old to new BPO will not have lost side effect too much.
What about all the Fuel spent to make research, Me and PE? I've spent more than 2 year in cumulated researches. And now, to have the same level of ME/PE for same number f BPO it wxil just need less than a year, or at most a year? All time toget enough skills to do it? POS investments, datacore investment, etc..
The change is on, ok. But don't say it won't have a high cost for players that spent time, isk and skills to do it. ANd for a result that is not really known as there will be high hifts of pricin for materials, BPO, BPC and so on.
All to lower the level from the bottom as it seems to me |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 13:53:00 -
[325] - Quote
I just wanted to say something here. Most production jobs up until now only made single digit profit margins. So very small changes of even 1% say to the cost of production would be 15-20% of one's profits. That being said it baffles me how you guys are throwing around double digit changes here like there nothing.
I also wanted to note that you are trying to force industrial players which in my opinion are most likely the highest concentration of PvP averse players into null instead of enticing them into null which just seems like a poor decision and to have a complete lack of respect for different play styles.
I've read blogs from gaming industry insiders that have talked on the different player types and how all of them are needed to make an MMO work. iirc there were 5 different base player types. When you try and force one play style that just seems to show an ignorance to that position.
There's a word that I've thrown around here and on other forums for other games most of which are dying that in my opinion to a smart game developer should be an offensive swear word worse than any other. That word is "homogenization". In past expansions you've gotten rid of any difference the various races and bloodline have had between each other then removed all but minor superficial functional difference between the race's ships to the point where now you can just pick which ever races ships you think are prettier because functionally there's not much difference. Now you are trying to homogenize play style so everyone in game will need to run out to null and get involved in sov warfare or GTFO of the game.
I just want to go on record as saying I believe this in general to be poorly thought out and I feel not good for the game at least not for my play style and we'll see or I should say you'll see how it affects subs since you don't publish those numbers anymore. I think it will take probably about a year for things to shake out and for us to really see the effects of this expac but in the future I guess history will tell us. |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
503
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 14:00:00 -
[326] - Quote
The Cirus feedback thread is at the top of the page https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=360021
Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
41
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:00:00 -
[327] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:You guys said one thing early on with the ME and TE and did another. That's shady. Originally you said ME and TE were going to scale evenly i.e. ME was going to be 2% per level and now I see ME 1 being 5% and 6,7,8 and 9 being no improvement what so ever. Shady I tell you shady.
Under the new system ME does scale evenly. Time does not scale evenly.
Under the old system ME did not scale evenly. Time did scale evenly.
So this change was just converting one for the other.
me:+9 will have 9x the savings as me:+1 (you need items that use a lot of small materials to see this, like say battleships). Each "Level" of me is a "Saving" of 0.01*base, up to a maxium of 10% savings
TE is 2% per level. CCP were stuck on the conversions and they had to pick the best way to do it. Some people made out like bandits, some got stung hard, and some ended up with nearly the same thing.
It must be said however, that those that got stung hard in the conversion would have had low research, and under this new system they can still bump it up at minimal cost. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:08:00 -
[328] - Quote
I finally got to look at the new UI and new BPs and I don't like it at all. Everything was so easy to read and understand before there were numbers and you could look up what they meant and understand things now there's slide bars and pictures and other useless crap that just looks pretty. Math is math to have an industrial UI with numbers in columns and rows that have labels. You start putting pictures in there and you're making a left brain activity easier for right brainers but harder for left brainers. Why not just make industry good for industrialists and leave the pretty picture for deviant art. |
Nalha Saldana
Saldana Hardware Corporation
801
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:09:00 -
[329] - Quote
How about showing the actual price modifier for manufacturing and other jobs in the Facilities tab and let us sort by that, clicking through them all just to find the actual production price is annoying and unnecessary.
Right now systems with same system price index have very different prices and i though you wanted to remove unnecessary, painful clicking. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:14:00 -
[330] - Quote
DeODokktor wrote:
Under the new system ME does scale evenly. Time does not scale evenly.
Under the old system ME did not scale evenly. Time did scale evenly.
So this change was just converting one for the other.
me:+9 will have 9x the savings as me:+1 (you need items that use a lot of small materials to see this, like say battleships). Each "Level" of me is a "Saving" of 0.01*base, up to a maxium of 10% savings
TE is 2% per level. CCP were stuck on the conversions and they had to pick the best way to do it. Some people made out like bandits, some got stung hard, and some ended up with nearly the same thing.
It must be said however, that those that got stung hard in the conversion would have had low research, and under this new system they can still bump it up at minimal cost.
Did you see the chart in this blog? Because it shows the opposite of what you are saying here. It shows ME 1 being 5% and ME 5,6,7,8,and 9 all being 9%. The original blog stated ME 1 would be 1% and ME 2 being 2% etc... with it winding up at ME 10 being 10%. That is even scaling. Not sure what you are looking at. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |