EVE Search - Sticky:New dev blog: Tech is fine l2p

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:New dev blog: Tech is fine l2p

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 15 post(s)
Louis deGuerre The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities 359	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:52:00 - [61] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Louis deGuerre wrote: If this ensure that prices drop so I can afford to PVP again in something other than T1 frigs I love it. But I just don't get it. It is such a strange solution. Why not use your PI system (flaws and all) to produce vital moon minerals instead ? That would ensure that minerals are distributed more evenly over the galaxy, are dynamic resources, and give DUST bunnies something meaningful to fight over. This is the first step in our plan to revamp tech 2 production. Changes to how the minerals are obtained will be coming before we're done (although probably not from PI). Thanks for your response, looking forward to future changes. FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1
Mikron Alexarr New Age Solutions The Laughing Men 68	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:53:00 - [62] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: mercuryyy wrote: If the numbers in the blog are real -- 100 Cobalt and 100 Platinum reacts into 1 Unrefined Platinum Technite refines into 10 Platinum Technite and 95 Platinum - you basically use 100 Cobalt and 5 Platinum to get just 10 Platinum Technite per reaction cycle (= POS Cycle = 1 hour, i take it). At current values, you would be loosing money not only on the pure reaction, but also on the fuel needed for that reactor/refineries bzw refining taxes etc. To break even, the Tech Price (and with that the Platinum Technite price) would have to at least rise by 500% to make it worthwile to do this alchemy reaction.. This surely isnt a way to force prices down, if thats at all necessary. From the blog: Quote: You will notice that we are starting these reactions at the same conversion rate as the original alchemy instead of the conversion rate of current boosted alchemy. These ratios can and likely will change over subsequent releases as we adjust the system. We have a lot of data about what happens when you release 20/1 alchemy, so we started there. Jesus Christ, a Dev that is doing sensible things... QFT Quote: We have a lot of data about what happens when you release 20/1 alchemy, so we started there. I look forward to more sensible ideas from this new guy.
Lukas Rox Aideron Robotics 8	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:54:00 - [63] - Quote @CCP Fozzie: The change is logical and will result in cheap Tech based goo. +1 for tackling an overdue problem The only problem is I think you just made yourself Goonswarm's enemy No1 ;-) (unless Mittani created OTEC purely for Trolling purposes in which case he has succeeded again).
Jarin Arenos Card Shark Industries 22	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:54:00 - [64] - Quote Elecktra Blue wrote: "The end goal is for the materials for tech two production to come from player activities that require group gameplay and risk taking, and that provide appropriate rewards." Yes not like a group of players took the time to grind sov, place towers, keep up the logistics of said towers, and defended them. Out of curiosity, when was the last time someone actually threatened CFC's tech sov? Like... legitimately, not just trolling.
Zagdul Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 827	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:54:00 - [65] - Quote This will end well. Prepare for an even more stagnant EVE :) A list of fixes for the new inventory Dual Pane idea clicky
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 8611	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:54:00 - [66] - Quote Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote: its like we had a vision... so we just conquered the new tec lands, lol Called it! 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¥ CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
wallenbergaren University of Caille Gallente Federation 46	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:54:00 - [67] - Quote Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote: cobalt moons: Period Basis 163 Querious 358 its like we had a vision... so we just conquered the new tec lands, lol thanks CPP PS: Catch 434... NEXT A clueless goon nbs
Mikron Alexarr New Age Solutions The Laughing Men 68	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:55:00 - [68] - Quote Elecktra Blue wrote: "The end goal is for the materials for tech two production to come from player activities that require group gameplay and risk taking, and that provide appropriate rewards." Yes not like a group of players took the time to grind sov, place towers, keep up the logistics of said towers, and defended them. That stuff is exclusive to an alliance. I'm hoping these other steps are the precursors to planetary ring mining or something similar so that smaller groups can have some crumbs from the table.
Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke 290	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:55:00 - [69] - Quote Tippia wrote: Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote: its like we had a vision... so we just conquered the new tec lands, lol Called it! all hail prophet Tippia
Sister Bliss Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 54	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:55:00 - [70] - Quote Congratulations on finally getting round to fixing one of the most cirtically game-breaking SNAFU's after over 2 and half years of doing God knows what. Here is the original dev blog for anyone looking for the link on what was intended vs. what was delivered: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=703

XavierVE Reasonable People Of Sound Mind 168	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:56:00 - [71] - Quote Zagdul wrote: This will end well. Prepare for an even more stagnant EVE :) Yes, removing the only real reason Evoke, NC., PL and Blueswarm had to be blue to one another will certainly make EVE more stagnant. Great change, hopefully it's iterated on and is just the first step to unfucking EVE's economy.
Hakaru Ishiwara Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 282	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:57:00 - [72] - Quote Since it hasn't been said yet.... Soz, CCP waited over two and a half years and hired a new guy to fix a majorly imbalanced design decision from '09. Congratulations? That said, alchemy looks promising. LOL. Sister Bliss beat me by two posts! Sister Bliss wrote: Congratulations on finally getting round to fixing one of the most cirtically game-breaking SNAFU's after over 2 and half years of doing God knows what. Here is the original dev blog for anyone looking for the link on what was intended vs. what was delivered: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=703 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters ~~284~~286
Vilnius Zar Ordo Ardish 92	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:57:00 - [73] - Quote Lukas Rox wrote: @CCP Fozzie: The change sounds logical and will result in cheap Tech based goo. If alchemy was not profitable, people would not run it, would they? +1 for tackling an overdue problem The only problem is I think you just made yourself Goonswarm's enemy No1 ;-) (unless Mittani created OTEC purely for Trolling purposes in which case he has succeeded again). I'm sure he'll spin it that way, and many ppl will gobble it up. Amat victoria curam.

CCP Omen C C P C C P Alliance 157	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:58:00 - [74] - Quote Elecktra Blue wrote: "The end goal is for the materials for tech two production to come from player activities that require group gameplay and risk taking, and that provide appropriate rewards." Yes not like a group of players took the time to grind sov, place towers, keep up the logistics of said towers, and defended them. I think this is a good point and you should applaud yourself. It doesn't change the fact that nudges can be required for the benefit of the EVE universe. Like it or not but we did the same with PI taxes. I am sure that was a great benefit to some and a huge problem for others. You'll bounce back I'm sure for the same reasons you climbed to power in the first place; being excellent at EVE! Kudos Omen Senior Game Designer Team True Grit EVE/DUST Gameplay Liaison

Dramaticus Goonswarm Federation 175	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:58:00 - [75] - Quote Hakaru Ishiwara wrote: Since it hasn't been said yet.... Soz, CCP waited over two and a half years and hired a new guy to fix a majorly imbalanced design decision from '09. Congratulations? That said, alchemy looks promising. Alchemy is a pretty terrible band-aid. The entire T2 process needs to be revamped, not space-magik'd away.
Spurty D00M. Northern Coalition. 365	Posted - 2012.07.19 14:59:00 - [76] - Quote Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote: cobalt moons: Period Basis 163 Querious 358 its like we had a vision... so we just conquered the new tec lands, lol thanks CPP PS: Catch 434... NEXT http://evemaps.dotlan.net/region/moons ---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.
BeanBagKing Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing 169	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:00:00 - [77] - Quote Abdiel Kavash wrote: Quote: The end goal is for the materials for tech two production to come from player activities that require group gameplay and risk taking, and that provide appropriate rewards. This will eventually involve changes to both resource collection and the build requirements for construction of tech two materials and items. Does this mean you are trying to eliminate sources of alliance-level income? Or is there something being planned to replace moon mining on an alliance level? I seem to remember when CCP previously discussed this they mentioned that they didn't like the idea that an alliance can hold a few moons and be rich, but hold absolutely no space, nor even live in the area with the moons. The idea CCP seemed to have here is that alliance income should be tied to how active an alliance is in their own space (As far as living there, defending it, upgrading it, mining, ratting, etc). Hopefully the moon mining fix also ties in with this larger scheme of alliance income and they'll fix that. The current alliance/corp income mechanics are pretty broken. Ratting can be taxed by a corp, but not mining or market trading. Mining can be taxed via station refinery taxes, but many times these are either a) skipped when people refine at POS's, or b) held by alliance holding corps, resulting in a mining tax that goes to alliance instead of corp. Here again market operations and building don't get taxed (by the corp/alliance anyway, what is CONCORD doing taxing markets in player run 0.0?). If CCP wants alliance to gain income via member actions the entire tax/income mechanics need to be overhauled as well. Corp leaders need to be able to directly (and somewhat evenly) tax all members of a corp no matter what their activity in a corp. It would also be great if they could tax them based on relative activity (kind of like ratting now) and not just a flat tax of XX mil isk/week or whatever, i.e. the more flexability here, the better. Let us run our own operations, but give us the tools to do it. Alliances need similar power to chose who they tax (the corps directly, or the players directly) and how they tax them (flat tax, per member tax, tax against activities such as ratting, mining, marketing, etc). Again, they need to be able to make this fairly even across all activities.
Hans Jagerblitzen Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 2671	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:01:00 - [78] - Quote Great blog!! This is a long overdue change, it's great to see it finally actualized. CCP Fozzie is good people, folks. Buy him a beer next Fan Fest for his work at making Tech 2 more affordable for all! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
AdmiralJohn Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 13	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:01:00 - [79] - Quote CCP Omen wrote: You'll bounce back I'm sure for the same reasons you climbed to power in the first place; being excellent at EVE! Kudos Omen But what about us at TEST who are not good at Eve?
Crunchmeister THORN Syndicate THORN Alliance 325	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:02:00 - [80] - Quote Sister Bliss wrote: Congratulations on finally getting round to fixing one of the most cirtically game-breaking SNAFU's after over 2 and half years of doing God knows what. Seconded. I'm glad to see this being addressed finally, although I'm skeptical to how much of an effect it will have. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than this change to fix the damage already done to the game. One way or another, I don't think it'll change much of anything, because they who control the Tech that currently is the "problem item" also happen to control the vast majority of the other moons that can be used as alternatives to Tech moons. In the end, it's just the status quo and I don't see this doing much of anything except be a nerf to some of the smaller entities that happen to hold a Tech moon or two. I know the voices in my head aren't real, but they have some really great ideas sometimes.


CCP Omen C C P C C P Alliance 159	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:03:00 - [81] - Quote AdmiralJohn wrote: CCP Omen wrote: You'll bounce back I'm sure for the same reasons you climbed to power in the first place; being excellent at EVE! Kudos Omen But what about us at TEST who are not good at Eve? HAHA you will survive because you are so adorable! Cheers for making me laugh! Senior Game Designer Team True Grit EVE/DUST Gameplay Liaison

Fiberton StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance 18	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:03:00 - [82] - Quote Within 120 days after nerf you will lose 1/3rd member base. What do you think keeps people around? Ship reimbursment. i hatechosingnames wrote: Aryndel Vyst wrote: More regions to conquer I suppose. Woe is me! We'll have to conquer everywhere. More structure shoots. Fly safe :) GÇ£Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.GÇ¥ -- -áAlbert -áEinstein-á
Jolan Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 6	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:04:00 - [83] - Quote First leaking metric tons of opsec intel during the tourney, now this.... BoB's man on the inside did much MUCH better.
Joseph Blade Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement 0	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:04:00 - [84] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Gumpy Nighthawk wrote: Quote: Ahahaha just kidding moongoo is completely broken and weGÇÖre going to fix that starting in Inferno 1.2. No you won't, just like alchemy was supposed to be the holy grail, as you guys tried to tell us, it never really was. I completely agree that alchemy is no holy grail. It is simply a start to the process. Alchemy has the dual benefits of being quick enough to implement right away and having a moderating influence on the market that will make phase two much easier and safer for the eve economy. I haven't done the math for tech, but in the past, alchemy had such a low throughput rate that it wasn't a viable alternative. The amount of towers you need to get a workable amount of materials was excessive. The process might need a mild tweak to yield more units/hour.
Lord Zim 1030	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:05:00 - [85] - Quote Lukas Rox wrote: The only problem is I think you just made yourself Goonswarm's enemy No1 ;-) (unless Mittani created OTEC purely for Trolling purposes in which case he has succeeded again). Except we've been very, very vocal for years about tech being a problem. Selective memory, thy name is pubbie.
Sirane Elrek GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 26	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:05:00 - [86] - Quote Between SISI and TQ you should shuffle around the catalyst inputs on all of those recipes, just to **** over devblog speculators.
Fiberton StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance 18	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:06:00 - [87] - Quote You think ? :) Vile rat wrote: Looks like we might have to scale back our Machariel reimbursements slightly! GÇ£Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.GÇ¥ -- -áAlbert -áEinstein-á
Spurty D00M. Northern Coalition. 365	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:07:00 - [88] - Quote Jarin Arenos wrote: Out of curiosity, when was the last time someone actually threatened CFC's tech sov? Like... legitimately, not just trolling. Would need to be : A) - Equal in size (Have a chance at success) B) - Not have space already (Have a need to fight) C) - Not be blue to them (or a pet, Merc) There is no such entity, nor will there be with zero barriers capping point C. Healthy for EVE? ---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.
Nomad I University of Caille Gallente Federation 82	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:07:00 - [89] - Quote CCP failed since 2008 In 2008 when the tech change were introduced and a new monopoly were established, many players warned CCP. The answer from CCP over time was first silence and later it should motivate to start wars. In the meantime monopolists of sellers tried successfull to dictate prices. Apparently the change in 2008 was just a fast fix to hit BOB for T20, bugusing and other things. But CCP has beaten the hole player base by creating the conditions for super coalitions, peace and BFF. The worst is, that we had to wait 3 years for a dev blog about this. My assumption is, that some dev egos don't have the distance between their project and necessary adjustments. The community of players showed more wisdom than the devs. It's a sad development.
Ingen Kerr Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 14	Posted - 2012.07.19 15:10:00 - [90] - Quote That FA dude's math is way off. Doing alchemy vs. traditional reactions balloons your fuel cost (because you need to run twenty alchemy reactions to match the output per hour of one regular simple reaction) but the cost of fuel for ten additional towers and the plat and cobalt adds up to about 900 mil with sov fuel bonus. Compared to 2.9 bil you spend every week on tech to produce the same amount of platinum technite. So long as you can stand the grind of managing a bunch more towers, the alchemy is worth doing. Using historical amounts and ignoring the current cobalt speculation spike. Obviously the exact prices involved will vary. The most important variable for the cost to run alchemy is the topes. There are so many R8 and R16 moons out there, the goo price will never rise that high.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,08s, ref 20250722/0317
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.