|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
   |
Posted - 2012.11.21 07:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: You just need to impose maintenance costs for the owner of a supercapital ship, these costs should be considerable and comparable to the production costs. I'll present the draft of this mechanics, but I dont insist it should be exactly as I say - just to give a general idea. You say this as if $15 or 600 million for a PLEX every month isn't a high enough maintenance cost.  Is 600 mil/month enough? Let's estimate. If we agree 1% per day sounds reasonable, then it should be about 1 bil ISK per day for a Titan. Nowhere even close to 20 mil/day for plexing. I'm not trying to convince anyone that we should reduce the number of supers in the game, not in this thread. Instead, I'd like to see opinions of people who are actually involved in sov. warfare about proliferation. But if you folks agree there is an issue with it - here is the remedy.
I am personally against Titans but 1 bil a day, you already have your alt stored in a coffin.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
891
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 04:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: FYI production can be fun, mining can be fun. If it's not appealing to you personally - doesnt mean it's not for me as well. And this point stands regardless of supercapitals. Well yes. My point wasn't that mining and industry is inherently unfun (I mine highsec ice, make POS fuel, and cook drugs), but rather that increasing build times through various means isn't exactly doing anything to make that process more fun. That will only come through a true overhaul of manufacturing processes. Backpedaling!Classic, Hans! Don't want to alienate any potential CSM8 voters.
You should try the other thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2210786#post2210786
Where he uses the line "Do you think its responsible for CCP to spend an entire year working on something that affects a small portion of the population, when they could be fixing an area of space that affects multiple times that many players and subcriptions and potential subscriptions? " as a justification for fixing Null but totally misses the point that he is actually giving better reasons for spending more resources on Hi-sec and not Null. 
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
891
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 04:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Is it just me, or is it kinda hilarious that the CSM reps who are weighing in most heavily on nullsec issues are not particularly knowledgeable about nullsec? Hans. Issler. And to a lesser extent, Aleks.
(Aleks is probably the closest we have here to a CSM representative who understands anything about nullsec.)
Hell, Kelduum should start weighing in now.
(Aren't there some actual nullsec representatives?)
But then again, can we argue if some of them get dribble on the paperwork or don't understand that liquid paper does not work on monitors?
Lets face it they could not be mentally well adjusted or be too intelligent, if they are happy to give out their full names to a bunch of wierdos sitting at computers.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
898
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 10:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
Oh you changed your post, I liked the frail and delicate one
Edit: In all honesty they are probably starting work on the summit notes with it being only a couple of weeks away
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
|
| |
|