Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Urziel99
Unified Research and Industrial
174
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 19:19:39 -
[511] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Strong words, you don't know me very well, do you? I know that you like switching topics. Risks in citadels. Please answer.
Loss from station tax hikes. Loss from Asset safety delays (5-21 days with no material or blueprints) Loss from Asset Safety fees, if applicable. Loss of components from jobs in progress if EC destroyed. Loss of time hauling to EC's in hopes of getting small bonuses.
And that's just if you are an end user and not the owner.
None of these are acceptable given the low and spastic potential bonuses being offered. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
185
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 19:57:43 -
[512] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: What I'm curious about is; How would the owner of a public access EC actually charge public customers for using it - Manufacturing taxes are all NPC, job cost charges are collected by NPC's, system index costs are paid to NPC's.
So where does an owner get his or her bit? How do they charge for a % of the fuel cost from each user, how do they charge for a bit of profit or to recoup the quite large build costs to put the EC there for others to use.
If an owner has to charge above the already existing manufacturing costs - Where is the incentive for the public to use it?
Manufacturing taxes are not NPC. They go to the facilily owner, just as with outposts.
The tax is a percentage of the Install cost, which is subject to the Index. The more the index spikes, the more revenue the taxes will generate as a percentage of that, exacerbating the cost to public users. This will lead to thinner margins for users. New jobs will migrate. Index and therefore effective taxes will drop, people will come back. Note this does not require the operator to manually adjust the tax rate at any point.
A cunning industrialist will spreadsheet his EC's public tax rate, such that it maintains an index that is profitable for him to produce his own wares while subsidizing the facility costs. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
185
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 20:03:55 -
[513] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote: It takes less time to kill an EC in a wormhole so WH dwellers get shafted yet again
I've covered some choices and options you have earlier in the thread.
You need to get rid of this mentality of "I need to do it the most efficiently with minimal risk" in a wormhole.
The benchmark for wormhole life is "I CAN do it". As in, it is possible. There are reasons why it is favorable to do it inefficiently. All part of
SurrenderMonkey wrote: You can't treat every individual concern as a deal breaker, when they're really just variables to be incorporated into your risk-benefit analysis.
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
433
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 20:14:52 -
[514] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm going through everything and I'll be making a big Q&A post with answers at some point soon.
No hurries, we wait.
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
125
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 21:43:33 -
[515] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:Iowa Banshee wrote: It takes less time to kill an EC in a wormhole so WH dwellers get shafted yet again
I've covered some choices and options you have earlier in the thread. You need to get rid of this mentality of "I need to do it the most efficiently with minimal risk" in a wormhole. The benchmark for wormhole life is "I CAN do it". As in, it is possible. There are reasons why it is favorable to do it inefficiently. All part of SurrenderMonkey wrote: You can't treat every individual concern as a deal breaker, when they're really just variables to be incorporated into your risk-benefit analysis.
I thank you for your opinions and I'm sure you have some expertise in the subject.
One thing I should point out is my benchmark for wormholes would be "I CAN do it NOW" , I do it now, to me this is fact - it is proven fact.
Regardless of it's profitability or efficiency the mantra will become "I CANNOT do it anymore" because this update is not an improvement for all EVE players for many it is a huge obstacle and in the case of solo/small corps it is an insurmountable obstacle given their chosen playing style.
It will not be popular for those affected because no one likes being forced into a different environment . |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
185
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 22:16:47 -
[516] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote:
I thank you for your opinions and I'm sure you have some expertise in the subject.
One thing I should point out is my benchmark for wormholes would be "I CAN do it NOW" , I do it now, to me this is fact - it is proven fact.
Regardless of it's profitability or efficiency the mantra will become "I CANNOT do it anymore" because this update is not an improvement for all EVE players for many it is a huge obstacle and in the case of solo/small corps it is an insurmountable obstacle given their chosen playing style.
It will not be popular for those affected because no one likes being forced into a different environment .
Why will you be unable to do it after? You can install an invention lab and a manufacturing plant in your Astrahus - presumably you have one already. It still has ample safety, and you will be able to carry on the activities, though at increased fuel costs.
Note that the hull itself bonuses production time - generally less relevant in WH space - and the effect of the rigs. You can still put, say, an M-set Advanced Medium Ship Manufacturing Material I rig on the astrahus for a 4% reduction in material cost, along with advanced component ME and invention cost or speed.
The fuel cost could get prohibitive, that will be an issue. Perhaps a system effect bonus is in order here. Something like reducing fuel consumption for industry services in wormholes by 50%. Similar to how the sov holder gets a fuel discount. Perhaps a scaling one would be in order, for different values based on the class of the wormhole. This would mitigate the fact you can't give access to third parties.
The big thing that is changing here is entry into a low class wormhole as a new entrepreneur. Currently low class holes have a massive home field advantage. It is relatively simple to build your own capitals in a tower, making you very hard to evict. Building them now will require an Azbel or Fortizar. This is a significantly higher setup cost. Though in mid and long term, presumably those who have them now will eventually lose them and require the same infrastructure to rebuild the asset. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2457
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 22:56:00 -
[517] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote:Vald Tegor wrote:Iowa Banshee wrote: It takes less time to kill an EC in a wormhole so WH dwellers get shafted yet again
I've covered some choices and options you have earlier in the thread. You need to get rid of this mentality of "I need to do it the most efficiently with minimal risk" in a wormhole. The benchmark for wormhole life is "I CAN do it". As in, it is possible. There are reasons why it is favorable to do it inefficiently. All part of SurrenderMonkey wrote: You can't treat every individual concern as a deal breaker, when they're really just variables to be incorporated into your risk-benefit analysis.
I thank you for your opinions and I'm sure you have some expertise in the subject. One thing I should point out is my benchmark for wormholes would be "I CAN do it NOW" , I do it now, to me this is fact - it is proven fact. Regardless of it's profitability or efficiency the mantra will become "I CANNOT do it anymore" because this update is not an improvement for all EVE players for many it is a huge obstacle and in the case of solo/small corps it is an insurmountable obstacle given their chosen playing style. It will not be popular for those affected because no one likes being forced into a different environment .
Reminded me of this, tbh: https://xkcd.com/1172/
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Pretentious Knob
Silhouette Services
6
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 00:32:24 -
[518] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:How I would change Engineering Complexes to be a little more flexible:
- Provide more fitting slots than a citadel
- Provide less CPU, PG than a citadel
- Ensure that assembly arrays and labs can be paused at any time without damaging the work in progress
- Allow the station operator to offline and online modules at will
- Add a DPS floor set at 20% of the DPS cap, meaning that if incoming DPS drops too low the repair timer will not pause. No plinking away with a stealth bomber or cloaky recon, keeping the repair timer active while dealing 200 DPS for half a day waiting for your corp mates to wake up and attend the structure bash
- If not a DPS floor, add a repair cap allowing hull, armour, shields to be repaired but limiting incoming repairs to a certain amount of HP/second
- Add a hard repair timer of one hour starting from the end of the vulnerability window so that an attacker can't keep the station vulnerable for up to 24 hours from the vulnerability window by simply shooting the structure with a small fleet until the defender has to go to work/bed
This will at least allow the EC (which is much more valuable than a citadel in terms of strategic worth) to be treated like a POS. We can have it bristling with offensive and defensive systems, along with all those lovely labs and activity lines, and offline the weapons while focussed on industry. Then when under attack we can offline the industry modules and online the weapon systems. Add a rig or module which will reduce the vulnerability window. Seriously, the structure with the smaller HP has the larger vulnerability window? Why? Provide meaningful gameplay, encourage structure owners to be active during the structure's vulnerability window. At the very least it should be possible for the owner of a small EC in hisec to e.g.: online enough hardeners to reduce the incoming DPS from a 12 battleship fleet to the point that the repair timer will start again, while maintaining reps on their own fleet to try and drive off the attackers. Previous discussion about work to prevent a repair timer being indefinitely prolonged: That's all I could find, a suggestion that maybe CCP will look at a DPS floor set to a percentage of the structure HP. Please let me know if there has been more discussion that I have simply not seen.
CCP just one of many suggestions. These structures have more value for all corps. It would be good if the various sizes have similar production and defence capabilities as their POS counterparts. Also please revisit fuel consumption.
|
JTK Fotheringham
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
127
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 11:23:41 -
[519] - Quote
It's been a few days, and I've read a lot... but I still can't get my head around the fundamental game design here.
CCP invested in a mechanic to push industry away from concentrations in single systems, using the System Cost Index introduced in Crius (July 2014). ...wait a year ...wait two years CCP invest in a (long-awaited) mechanic to replace Starbases with Citadels, with the promise of changes to Industry in Citadel (April 2016). ...wait almost 6 months CCP introduce Engineering Complexes with a cost profile designed to reward industry concentrating in structures more valuable, arguably more vulnerable, and certainly with just as frustrating (though different) inflexibility than the Starbases they replaced.
You can see why industrialists feel there's no coherent approach to developing this area.
Upwell Consortium promised "industrialists of New Eden - big and small" a new home in the stars. For all the flashy advertising, it's just another empty corporate promise.
/JTK |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1533
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 12:15:40 -
[520] - Quote
JTK Fotheringham wrote:It's been a few days, and I've read a lot... but I still can't get my head around the fundamental game design here.
CCP invested in a mechanic to push industry away from concentrations in single systems, using the System Cost Index introduced in Crius (July 2014). ...although because they also removed POS anchoring restrictions and allowed infinite numbers of jobs to be run from any single facility it also encouraged and allowed people to concentrate. So even that plan and execution was somewhat contradictory.
It used to be that a person needed to have a lot of POS to do large scale industry and lots of people needing lots of POS meant industry naturally spread out without the need for tax/index incentives. Even those that used NPC stations had an incentive to spread out to get shorter queues and therefore more efficient use of their job allocation.
Those hard incentives were removed and soft incentives were added. But soft incentives do not force specific behavior like hard incentives. The willingness of many players to ignore inconvenient economic truths means that if an incentive is soft enough it can and will be ignored by large swathes of the playerbase.
JTK Fotheringham wrote: ...wait a year ...wait two years CCP invest in a (long-awaited) mechanic to replace Starbases with Citadels, with the promise of changes to Industry in Citadel (April 2016). ...wait almost 6 months CCP introduce Engineering Complexes with a cost profile designed to reward industry concentrating in structures more valuable, arguably more vulnerable, and certainly with just as frustrating (though different) inflexibility than the Starbases they replaced.
It's sadly designed in such a way that it will appeal to sov holding entities, that are crying out for more reasons to bother holding space, but not to the kind of industrialist player who works solo or with a small group of friends. As usual, the smaller industrialist is given the scraps from the table because the feature is designed primarily around the needs of an entirely different playstyle.
JTK Fotheringham wrote:You can see why industrialists feel there's no coherent approach to developing this area. It does certainly appear that the direction has changed repeatedly and the implementations and outcomes have not matched the marketed intentions. |
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1533
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 12:24:08 -
[521] - Quote
These comments aren't about my personal situation. I'm prefectly happy that EC's are underpowered, overvulnerable and largely unsuitable for the little guy, because I'm not that little guy. But I once was and when I was, I'd have thought that these new EC's stink. Fortunately, when I was that little guy, I had the fully functional version of the POS to support me and that was massively empowering compared to what EC's are planned to be.
Bad Bobby wrote:My main concerns about the EC's are:
They are too expensive to fuel Their vulnerability windows are too big There are too many rigs
I think this makes them highly unattractive to smaller industrialists. Those players will be required to use either POS, NPC stations or a public EC/Citadel with the desired combination of services and rigs. Sadly, two of these options are "legacy" features and the remainder is renting from a landlord rather than striking out on your own. For some of the more independently minded industrialists this may be a bit stifling.
I'd either rectify those three issues, by reducing fuel consumption, reducing vulnerability windows and halving the number of rigs, or make a range of S-size personal use industrial structures that allow the small industrialist some small factories and labs of their own. I fully support the idea that the EC and the Citadel should be co-operative structures, but I also believe there should be more structures for the individual industrialist (who can still co-operate with others while using his own facility). An S-size facility could be torn down and moved easily if you relocate or wish to avoid exposure to a war dec, can have simple defence/destruction mechanics like the existing S-size structures, can have zero fuel requirements and a modest initial cost to reflect that only a maximum of 11 jobs could ever be installed in one (because that's the maximum any character can have). They would be everything an EC isn't and thus allow the EC to be what it is without excluding people from their desired industrial gameplay.
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
471
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 12:43:30 -
[522] - Quote
JTK Fotheringham wrote:It's been a few days, and I've read a lot... but I still can't get my head around the fundamental game design here.
CCP invested in a mechanic to push industry away from concentrations in single systems, using the System Cost Index introduced in Crius (July 2014). ...wait a year ...wait two years CCP invest in a (long-awaited) mechanic to replace Starbases with Citadels, with the promise of changes to Industry in Citadel (April 2016). ...wait almost 6 months CCP introduce Engineering Complexes with a cost profile designed to reward industry concentrating in structures more valuable, arguably more vulnerable, and certainly with just as frustrating (though different) inflexibility than the Starbases they replaced.
You can see why industrialists feel there's no coherent approach to developing this area.
Upwell Consortium promised "industrialists of New Eden - big and small" a new home in the stars. For all the flashy advertising, it's just another empty corporate promise.
/JTK
Or...
for the last part
CCP introduces Engineerig Complexes to correct the imbalanced cost/benefit ratio of the POS which currently provides enormous benefit in a single structure for minimal cost relative to that benefit. Players now have choices to make other than which low index system to drop the stick which include the option to use common structures or go it alone with the corresponding risks.
There is nothing about this that forces anyone to congregate into fewer and fewer systems. All the POS owners in a given system could band together and create a single EC to provide higher bonuses, lower taxes, and not change the system index one bit.
If anything, the current system, with its cheap, easily moved, wardec avoiding and strongly beneficial structures has artificially influenced the spread of industry by not providing any real choice or consequence. By adding a wider risk/reward balance, CCP is adding enough variables into the equation to actually realize the intent of the index system.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1535
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 12:54:47 -
[523] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:CCP introduces Engineerig Complexes to correct the imbalanced cost/benefit ratio of the POS which currently provides enormous benefit in a single structure for minimal cost relative to that benefit. An imbalance that they introduced in Crius. Which I think is kind of his point.
Sure this is a move to fix something that is broken, but it was broken in the previous industrial re-work and at least wasn't as broken before that. Just because they're cleaning up the **** on the floor today, doesn't make it any more disturbing that they dropped it there yesterday.
Obil Que wrote:Players now have choices to make other than which low index system to drop the stick which include the option to use common structures or go it alone with the corresponding risks. Once they're up to a certain level, sure. But the smaller industrialist, which includes the much talked about "new player", doesn't actually have access to all of those options without first making major choices about their path in the game that they may not be ready for at the time. The problem is that the new industrial structures are pitched somewhat high and there isn't a similar variety of choice and support for varied playstyles at the lower level.
Obil Que wrote:There is nothing about this that forces anyone to congregate into fewer and fewer systems. Other than typical player behaviour. This is where these changes often fall down, they leave open a bunch of options at release day, but don't have the design foresight to keep those options open long term once a player created meta is established around them.
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
471
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 13:09:06 -
[524] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Obil Que wrote:Players now have choices to make other than which low index system to drop the stick which include the option to use common structures or go it alone with the corresponding risks. Once they're up to a certain level, sure. But the smaller industrialist, which includes the much talked about "new player", doesn't actually have access to all of those options without first making major choices about their path in the game that they may not be ready for at the time. The problem is that the new industrial structures are pitched somewhat high and there isn't a similar variety of choice and support for varied playstyles at the lower level.
Structures are not for "new" players. Even the cost of the current POS stick isn't something that a typical "new player" is implementing. A progression system provides goals and milestones for people to reach :
- Start building in an NPC station by finding affordable, profitable products (these DO exist, despite outcries that they do not) - Move your industry to a public EC when you want to start taking advantage of the larger bonuses but feel you can absorb some of that risk - Take the corporation branch and join up with other industrialists to share their private EC - Move up the solo branch and decide to drop your own structure, possibly opening it up to others as a public or semi-public EC
And these are only really showing options in the high-sec industry use case. The middle two are not available today in most cases because of the POS system. Today you either have the money to put down your own POS (and the requirement to make your own corp to do it) or you do your work in an NPC station with a few exceptions for industrial corps that deal with the shitshow of POS security. The "new player" has distinct advantages in the EC system by having accessible structures with bonuses unavailable to them now.
|
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
845
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 13:22:51 -
[525] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm going through everything and I'll be making a big Q&A post with answers at some point soon. I'm hoping for some feedback sometime in the near future...
Hopefully with a reduction to Vulnerability Timers... |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1535
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 13:25:42 -
[526] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:But the smaller industrialist, which includes the much talked about "new player", doesn't actually have access to all of those options without first making major choices about their path in the game that they may not be ready for at the time. The problem is that the new industrial structures are pitched somewhat high and there isn't a similar variety of choice and support for varied playstyles at the lower level. Structures are not for "new" players. Even the cost of the current POS stick isn't something that a typical "new player" is implementing. So we just want to ignore the smaller industrialist then?
For new players: It's clear that these structures are not for "new" players, that's my point, there aren't a whole lot of options for new players.
Obil Que wrote:A progression system provides goals and milestones for people to reach :
- Start building in an NPC station by finding affordable, profitable products (these DO exist, despite outcries that they do not) - Move your industry to a public EC when you want to start taking advantage of the larger bonuses but feel you can absorb some of that risk - Take the corporation branch and join up with other industrialists to share their private EC - Move up the solo branch and decide to drop your own structure, possibly opening it up to others as a public or semi-public EC A single or limited path progression system like that may be great in a game that wants to avoid detail and control the breadth of player choice in order to keep implementation costs to a minimum, I'd hate to see EVE become one of those games.
Obil Que wrote:And these are only really showing options in the high-sec industry use case. The middle two are not available today in most cases because of the POS system. Those options used to exist in POSes, but were removed in Crius.
Obil Que wrote:Today you either have the money to put down your own POS (and the requirement to make your own corp to do it) or you do your work in an NPC station with a few exceptions for industrial corps that deal with the shitshow of POS security. The "new player" has distinct advantages in the EC system by having accessible structures with bonuses unavailable to them now. And yesterday we had a lot more options, which were removed, but now they are going to be returned in a more expensive, exclusive and less flexible format.
I'm sure it's not that difficult to understand a veteran industrialist watching the direction of industry thrashing around like a drunken calf and having little confidence. |
embrel
BamBam Inc.
286
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 14:31:16 -
[527] - Quote
A POS is something most can drop relatively quickly after joining Eve. So it was a possibility to leave a kinda physical mark in space, even for young solo players. I believe the desire to leave kinda physical mark is quite human. This possibility will be negated soon. Therefore, to me, there will be less potential in Eve and not more. I see that this might be a bit off topic, however, this is my biggest objection to the new structure system. |
Lord Ra
Section XII The Southern Querious Drug Cartel
94
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 14:49:21 -
[528] - Quote
Love the new changes,
Regards Your Only Happy Customer |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
383
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 15:10:54 -
[529] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:These comments aren't about my personal situation. I'm prefectly happy that EC's are underpowered, overvulnerable and largely unsuitable for the little guy, because I'm not that little guy. But I once was and when I was, I'd have thought that these new EC's stink. Fortunately, when I was that little guy, I had the fully functional version of the POS to support me and that was massively empowering compared to what EC's are planned to be. When you were a little guy, did you have a vision of progression? Did you know, that you will build more towers, better faction ones, closer to Jita. Maybe something a little different, but you see my point.
Now, what line of progression do they have atm? Get in the farthest corner of the galaxy, away from high index and wardecs, but still with the same small tower which provides them with infinite industrial power. Well this is what I call "stink". |
Lightning Q
Taurus Quantum Technologies Taurus Quantum Dynamics
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 15:25:25 -
[530] - Quote
Ellowah
While I was initially thrilled about the Complex's once I went over the numbers and rigs .... that quickly subsided. Fuel costs are way to high to afford on a stable long term. Not even counting the "double" ammount of fuel that will be used to run pos's & EC's during transition ...
If you want a pos equivalent you need like 4-5 large EC's just to get all the rig bonuses, which is kinda sad. (Especially since you can't anchor them next to eachother) And I don't even wanne know howmany small ones you would need lol. If you have a very specific market you only focus on then it's great.
But I prefer to be flexable and follow the markets in what to build, generates a more stable incomme. And also lets you expand into new area's were you can still make calculations mistakes, every % helps.
Why not make it when you create a public industry que on an EC that the fuel cost increases And when it's a private EC it gets reduced, generate a mission to "maintain / clean your citadel" to reduce consumption? :p Or search for better operators who use the arrays more efficiently :p Or create faction service modules which consume less fuel.
And there are truly way to many rigs :p
On another note while I love security in citadels But I do wonder if it's not a bit to "safe" destroying a citadel seems a lot harder then a pos used to be, maybe a bit to much |
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
383
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 15:29:16 -
[531] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Obil Que wrote:A progression system provides goals and milestones for people to reach :
- Start building in an NPC station by finding affordable, profitable products (these DO exist, despite outcries that they do not) - Move your industry to a public EC when you want to start taking advantage of the larger bonuses but feel you can absorb some of that risk - Take the corporation branch and join up with other industrialists to share their private EC - Move up the solo branch and decide to drop your own structure, possibly opening it up to others as a public or semi-public EC A single or limited path progression system like that may be great in a game that wants to avoid detail and control the breadth of player choice in order to keep implementation costs to a minimum, I'd hate to see EVE become one of those games. Of course this is not a single progression line, what are you talking about? It's just an example. Here's the other one. - Start at NPC station. - Take a loan to build EC and use that EC as collateral. Mortgage! In my EVE! Isn't it exciting? |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
383
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 15:34:40 -
[532] - Quote
Lightning Q wrote:[rigs] If you have a very specific market you only focus on then it's great. But I prefer to be flexable and follow the markets in what to build, generates a more stable incomme. Then sell it. You cannot sell a POS, but you can sell an EC. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1537
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 15:51:56 -
[533] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Obil Que wrote:A progression system provides goals and milestones for people to reach :
- Start building in an NPC station by finding affordable, profitable products (these DO exist, despite outcries that they do not) - Move your industry to a public EC when you want to start taking advantage of the larger bonuses but feel you can absorb some of that risk - Take the corporation branch and join up with other industrialists to share their private EC - Move up the solo branch and decide to drop your own structure, possibly opening it up to others as a public or semi-public EC A single or limited path progression system like that may be great in a game that wants to avoid detail and control the breadth of player choice in order to keep implementation costs to a minimum, I'd hate to see EVE become one of those games. Of course this is not a single progression line, what are you talking about? It's just an example. Here's the other one. - Start at NPC station. - Take a loan to build EC and use that EC as collateral. Mortgage! In my EVE! Isn't it exciting? That's the exact same progression with a different funding option, an unrelated and non-novel player generated funding option at that.
It supports my point very well, but doesn't really help your case.
The whole point of EVE is that CCP hand over the tools (that's their job) and we, the players, create the fun and the content with those tools (that's our job). In this way the players often create content that is entirely outside of CCP's design intentions. Open, accessible and flexible tools, albeit often with a malformed UI and obtuse, fragmented or absent documentation is what has promoted this so far. The ECs are overly restrictive and there is no need for them to be, no-ones needs are served by them being out of the reach of the little guy or inflexible and underpowered in the hands of the veteran. High costs limit viable playstyles, high baseline defensive workload limits viable playstyles, lack of flexibility limits viable playstyles. Some of those limits are good and give us a reason to build more complicated player created systems, but some of them are simply an unjustified embuggerance. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1537
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 15:53:03 -
[534] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Lightning Q wrote: If you have a very specific market you only focus on then it's great. But I prefer to be flexable and follow the markets in what to build, generates a more stable incomme.
Then sell it. You cannot sell a POS, but you can sell an EC. People sell POSes all the time, both anchored and packaged, what are you talking about? |
DiDDleR
Skunkdogz Corporation
10
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 15:53:47 -
[535] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Lightning Q wrote:[rigs] If you have a very specific market you only focus on then it's great. But I prefer to be flexable and follow the markets in what to build, generates a more stable incomme. Then sell it. You cannot sell a POS, but you can sell an EC.
Really I see plenty on the market at Jita, and you can take down and repackage your existing POS if you want to sell it.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1537
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 16:00:28 -
[536] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:These comments aren't about my personal situation. I'm prefectly happy that EC's are underpowered, overvulnerable and largely unsuitable for the little guy, because I'm not that little guy. But I once was and when I was, I'd have thought that these new EC's stink. Fortunately, when I was that little guy, I had the fully functional version of the POS to support me and that was massively empowering compared to what EC's are planned to be. When you were a little guy, did you have a vision of progression? Did you know, that you will build more towers, better faction ones, closer to Jita. Maybe something a little different, but you see my point. Now, what line of progression do they have atm? Get in the farthest corner of the galaxy, away from high index and wardecs, but still with the same small tower which provides them with infinite industrial power. Well this is what I call "stink". I fully agree that the post Crius POS situation is quite disgusting, but that was my opinion when this was being discussed in the pre and post Crius feedback threads too... the one that lead to that stink you refer too. Before then, POS were actually pretty damn good for industry and people such as myself had massive networks of POSes spanning systems and sprawling across multiple regions, renting research and industry facilities to the public for a fee. My particular operation was even funded by public player investment and through a player made stock market!
Nice to see we're going to have some of that functionality back after so long, but it would also be nice if it was more inclusive and flexible. |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
383
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 16:05:29 -
[537] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:People sell POSes all the time, both anchored and packaged, what are you talking about? Honest question - how? |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1537
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 16:11:19 -
[538] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:People sell POSes all the time, both anchored and packaged, what are you talking about? Honest question - how? You sell them inside the corp or use a third party to secure the deal. You should probably see more of the EVE sandbox, it's not as restrictive as you seem to think. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1538
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 16:19:34 -
[539] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:I fully agree that the post Crius POS situation is quite disgusting Good that we agree on that. But ye olde days are never coming back. Either we figure out how to work with ECs or we stay in a current, disgusting, situation. I chose to move on. You? As I said, the current system is terrible and it needs to be changed. It has needed to be changed since it was last changed.
That doesn't mean I will jump blindly into whatever alternative CCP first give me. That doesn't mean I will not give them the feedback they need to make beneficial iterations on the system.
I'll make use of whatever CCP ends up giving me, I will adapt and overcome as always. That acceptance of reality doesn't prevent me from desiring further improvement. Given that this feature is still in development I don't see why we should have to wait years for that improvement, rather than iterating this feature to a better state now. |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
383
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 16:21:26 -
[540] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:People sell POSes all the time, both anchored and packaged, what are you talking about? Honest question - how? You sell them inside the corp or use a third party to secure the deal. You should probably see more of the EVE sandbox, it's not as restrictive as you seem to think. Yes, but when I leave the corp - the POS will not follow me. Or should I stick to some random corp for the rest of it? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |