|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp
Mostly Harmless
   |
Posted - 2009.11.07 01:18:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 07/11/2009 01:18:54
So station costs treble, but we'll have to pay if we want to keep them. Breidge costs treble, so we'll shut down all but the most important. POS fuel bonus nerfed so we'll drop sov in all non station/bridge systems. Which, tbh, is pretty much cost neutral - the loss of sov pos in non station systems balances the cost of sov in stations. The sole result for alliances is fewer jumpbridges and slightly more expensive moon mining. Macroeconomic factors - huge new isk sink - might affect this, but not immediatly.
a) no effect for players
b) less work for infrastructure POS teams
c) a new toy for alliance managements
Now ... prove that an infrastructure module can pay for itself in an NON-strategic system and we have something further to discuss. Till, then *shrug*
Myn
![]() |
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 01:53:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 07/11/2009 01:54:16
 Originally by: Valeronx
It'll be interesting to see the Influence Map in January or Feburary. By and large though, I agree.
It will show that alliances only claim their stations and critical bridge nodes. The rest they won't claim but will continue using as before.
less unecessary sov pos, less bridge routes .. and .. er ... that's about it. Unless there is more to the infrastruture stuff, that is. Still waiting to hear the fine detail on that, but not optimistic.
![]() |
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 10:58:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 07/11/2009 10:58:49
Originally by: Morphisat
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Hi 
Thanks for ignoring all the other issues mentioned in this thread !
That's because most of the issues are bollox
a) stations are more expensive .. lose sov pos elsewhere to compensate .. result is cost neutral .. and that's with THIS iteration of pricing.
b) jump bridges are more expensive .. we use less .. ummm who cares .. we'll adapt .. and that's with THIS iteration of pricing.
c) infrastructure hubs is too expensive and income is too low .. oh look, a reply showing that "The distribution of sites is made so that the higher the upgrade, the higher quality anomaly" .. problem solved
d) income goes to players and not to directors to ebay .. ummm .. this is bad?!?!?
e) macroeconomics blah blah .. and of course they have an economist with spreadsheets.
honestly, most of the rest of the points were just the usual whining.
My alliance is looking at a range of options from turtling to expansion .. the numbers will dictate where on that spectrum we will sit. So far we are not worried ... actually I'm getting quite excited.
Myn
![]() |
|
|
| |
|