EVE Search - Fixing Tech

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Fixing Tech

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lord Zim 987	Posted - 2012.07.09 11:56:00 - [1] - Quote adam smash wrote: The null bears will do whatever they can to stop CCP from nerfing tech... Stop lying.
Lord Zim 987	Posted - 2012.07.09 12:13:00 - [2] - Quote Pyotr Kamarovi wrote: Pipa Porto wrote: Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote: Add a special probe that can reduce moon mining efficiency by, say, 50% for X period of time. This bomb could be fired by probe launchers and used to disrupt moon mining by making the moon's output lower. RFed moons produce no Tech for the duration of their RF timer. I've never participated in a POS bash, so how long does it take to reinforce a tower? Depends on what you bring and how the POS is setup, but even dickstars can be smugcycled by a sensibly sized dread fleet. As to the whole "well reduce the tech output by 50%" suggestion, by all means go ahead, I'd love to see tech go past 250k/unit because the supply is even further out of whack compared to demand. It's a great idea.
Lord Zim 987	Posted - 2012.07.09 12:28:00 - [3] - Quote TheGunslinger42 wrote: CCP will never balance tech because it'd harm their favouritest big alliances Stop lying.
Lord Zim 989	Posted - 2012.07.09 13:08:00 - [4] - Quote TheGunslinger42 wrote: Lord Zim wrote: TheGunslinger42 wrote: CCP will never balance tech because it'd harm their favouritest big alliances Stop lying. Oh please, everyone and their dog can see the balance/bottleneck issues with tech/moons in general. It's an area CCP are extremely slow to move on. Hell, even mittani spoke about the tech issue. CCP are far too worried about disrupting anything for the big recognizable 0.0 alliances in EVE, though. They're fine with rushing out poorly thought out mechanics in many other areas (walking in stations, incursions, war dec mechanics in inferno 1.0 and then again in 1.1... etc) and just watching the **** hit the fan and cleaning it up later, but they fret and fuss and ultimately do nothing over 0.0 things for far too long. Okay, let's go about this a different way, then: do you have any proof for your allegation that CCP aren't balancing tech "because it'd harm their favouritest big alliances"? Because last I checked, we'd started preparing for a tech-less world even before mittens began pushing for tech to be rebalanced. We're ready, we don't care, but as long as CCP aren't fixing it we'll exploit it.
Lord Zim 989	Posted - 2012.07.09 13:23:00 - [5] - Quote Jimmy Gunsmythe wrote: If you want to fix it, remove it. The imbalance it has created has become far too great. If you're thinking about the current north vs south war, the problem isn't economics, the problem is we're not **, whereas -A- is *. This could've been the war to redefine the scale at which all wars in eve are fought, and -A- actually put up less* of a fight than when the NC was removed from the game, and this has nothing to do with numbers or tech, and everything to do with morale, and -A- having none. They literally announced a retreat of all resources to NPC stain within 2 days of us saying "we're going south".
Lord Zim 989	Posted - 2012.07.09 13:52:00 - [6] - Quote dexington wrote: TheGunslinger42 wrote: Oh please, everyone and their dog can see the balance/bottleneck issues with tech/moons in general. It's an area CCP are extremely slow to move on. I recently watched last years alliance tournament, and one of the devs being interviewed talks about the technetium bottleneck problem, and how the design of reactions makes it hard to change. It sounded like they were looking at a change the involved changing the reaction tree, which sounds like one way to change the value of technetium while keeping the price on T2 items stable. There are essentially two things they can do to "quickly fix" the tech bottleneck. 1) Rebalance the moongoo consumption in T2 components 2) Add alchemy to every tier of moongoo. I think that if they'd redone the 1) option back to what it was before tech became the major bottleneck, it'd still be an improvement, because while the neo/dyspro moons were valuable, they weren't limited to the northern areas. And it's not like the south is fully worthless either, despite what they'll have you think.
Lord Zim 990	Posted - 2012.07.09 16:19:00 - [7] - Quote Elzon1 wrote: I don't why people can't do their research. CCP Soundwave has stated that they are doing moon alchemy for ALL moon tiers (including R32). This should help with the bottleneck problem and allow the tech2 markets to become oversupplied. If not then others things will have to be done on top of that so it can become oversupplied. I'm not saying the tech2 market NEEDS to be oversupplied, just that the capability needs to be there as it currently isn't. The quote I am referencing: CCP Soundwave wrote: Ring mining might have to move back in favor or re-doing POSs. In the meantime, I'd really just like to alchemy every single tier of moons (like it was done with 64s). CCP Soundwave quote That's saying he'd like to do these things, not that they will be done. Never, ever, assume CCP are going to do something until you see it on Sisi/TQ.
Lord Zim 990	Posted - 2012.07.09 16:22:00 - [8] - Quote Marconus Orion wrote: Nothing wrong with adding Alchemy in the meantime. Such a mechanic is also easy to do for all moon goo considering it is already written. The burning question is: Why are they making the decision not to? As in years deciding not to. What is the motivation? God knows. Another burning question is: Why did CCP make the changes when the entire MD forum told CCP what they were going to end up doing? Was it a buff to the NC? It certainly wasn't to help goons, in fact the change made our moons **** more or less overnight.
Lord Zim 992	Posted - 2012.07.09 18:25:00 - [9] - Quote Again, he has said he'd like to do alchemy for all moon tiers, he hasn't said it will be done. There's a huge difference there. Stop shooting the hen before it's laid its eggs, it doesn't work.
Lord Zim 1004	Posted - 2012.07.10 07:26:00 - [10] - Quote That's not to say it wouldn't be hilarious to implement it, because it would make them cry even more when tech went past, not 170k/unit, but 250k/unit, because nothing was being mined. And then we could sit back and taunt them with "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it".

Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 00:14:00 - [11] - Quote If CCP dropped the whole "the ihub, tcu and station are sov structures" and changed everything over to "the POCOs (or added something similar) are sov structures", then maybe there would be more incentives to even try to have more than 1 large fight, followed by a sov structure grind/rep by the victor, and smallish gangs could possibly do some damage even at the sov level. Combine this with a repurposing of titans and supercarriers, and you should probably see a lot more interesting wars than today's mechanics currently allow.
Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 00:28:00 - [12] - Quote Pipa Porto wrote: Lord Zim wrote: If CCP dropped the whole "the ihub, tcu and station are sov structures" and changed everything over to "the POCOs (or added something similar) are sov structures", then maybe there would be more incentives to even try to have more than 1 large fight, followed by a sov structure grind/rep by the victor, and smallish gangs could possibly do some damage even at the sov level. Combine this with a repurposing of titans and supercarriers, and you should probably see a lot more interesting wars than today's mechanics currently allow. You mean kind of like what they had Pre-Dominion with POSes? Only with less HP, less possible numbers of structures to shoot and less cockfaggery by f.ex shooting your own POS with its own guns to get a timer you like. But yes.
Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 00:46:00 - [13] - Quote Pipa Porto wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Pipa Porto wrote: Lord Zim wrote: If CCP dropped the whole "the ihub, tcu and station are sov structures" and changed everything over to "the POCOs (or added something similar) are sov structures", then maybe there would be more incentives to even try to have more than 1 large fight, followed by a sov structure grind/rep by the victor, and smallish gangs could possibly do some damage even at the sov level. Combine this with a repurposing of titans and supercarriers, and you should probably see a lot more interesting wars than today's mechanics currently allow. You mean kind of like what they had Pre-Dominion with POSes? Only with less HP, less possible numbers of structures to shoot and less cockfaggery by f.ex shooting your own POS with its own guns to get a timer you like. But yes. Don't POCOs get their timer set by dropdown menu? Sadly, yes. It's why I said "or added something similar", because personally I'd prefer it if there were some mechanic which means that losing SOV is a bit of a tug of war between the attacker and the defender, where the defender can make fuckups beyond just "didn't bring enough people". But yeah, nothing like this is going to happen.
Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 01:11:00 - [14] - Quote Tying sov to planets make more sense than tying it to moons, though, and I'd much prefer they make some sort of minipos with just a stront bay, a shield and ... that's it.
Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 07:50:00 - [15] - Quote MotherMoon wrote: Pipa Porto wrote: MotherMoon wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Tying sov to planets make more sense than tying it to moons, though, and I'd much prefer they make some sort of minipos with just a stront bay, a shield and ... that's it. Wait ... I was gone for 3 years and your telling me sov os still tied to moons? That's.... So stupid Try reading the thread and you might notice that we're suggesting improvements now. What does that have to do with my post? I'm just posting my surprize becuase I've been give a long time. I thought that changed Allready, there was a dev blog on tying sov to planets in 2005. Was my post unclear? Sigh.
Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 08:02:00 - [16] - Quote Marlona Sky? Post anything other than silly one-liners? Perish the thought.
Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 08:06:00 - [17] - Quote Notorious badposter from SHC. I've no idea why he changed his name, don't really care.
Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 08:18:00 - [18] - Quote MotherMoon wrote: You want a flame war ? Becuase the last thing you want is a flame war with a forum vet. Bring it Sigh. Is that supposed to scare me? You might want to actually read before you go all "imma internet tuff tuff guy" next time. Actually, scratch that, you need to read and understand first. Go do that now, we'll wait.
Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 09:29:00 - [19] - Quote And if they start to, or prepare to shoot the SBUs, just unanchor and reanchor them. Voila another time extension.
Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 09:36:00 - [20] - Quote The SBU trick is also filled with cockfaggotry, but at least that's just a 1 hour extension (I believe), unlike the POS trick. It's still a dumb mechanic which should never have been in there. I mean, seriously, who thought "tell everyone 8 hours in advance when and where the next attack shall be" was a good idea?

Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 10:03:00 - [21] - Quote I think that generally just works the very first time, the subsequent times are harder to do this with, but true enough. As I said, it's a dumb mechanic which should never have been in there.
Lord Zim 1018	Posted - 2012.07.11 11:13:00 - [22] - Quote The old system worked on the basis that the guys with the most of the biggest POSes (in the system, not in the game, so you could take a system with a single sov-claiming small POS). Meaning it was up to you to choose how expensive you wanted your space to be. There's also the whole "only 5 POSes anchorable pr corp or alliance pr day" thing which puts a kind of limit on how quickly you can harden a system, and something about sufficient amounts of constellations in a region being SOV3 meant you had a capital constellation or system (I forget which) which turned into SOV4 where everything not a ship was invulnerable. Instead, we now have a system where the only difference between systems is whether or not they're cynojammed, and whether or not htey have an ihub, tcu or station online, and if the attacker loses even a single fight, they lose all progress in that system. Progress. :colbert:
Lord Zim 1019	Posted - 2012.07.11 13:47:00 - [23] - Quote Zagdul wrote: CCP please introduce these probes. They'd definitely help fix the price of tech. Fix it in our favour, yes. :sun:
Lord Zim 1019	Posted - 2012.07.11 14:00:00 - [24] - Quote Karadion Kohlar wrote: I like the idea. On top of our stockpile, OTEC can drive up the prices even further! The OP is a genius for not thinking of the unintended consequence. OTEC approves of this message. Unintended consequences is literally the one thing I keep pointing out to 99% of the ideas I comment on here, and they always get pissy about it. It's awesome. :sun:

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.