Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Ioqua
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 09:28:00 -
[721] - Quote
I love the idea of simplifying pos fueling.. I just dont like that the bricks are locked to each tower type..
What if the fuel bricks contained everything but the racial isotope..you then have the Isotopes made into bricks that burn over the same time period as the fuel also..it just makes it more flexible for a corp with multiple tower types to be able to stockpile the fuel and bring in the isotopes as required? |
Bloodhands
hirr Morsus Mihi
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 09:36:00 -
[722] - Quote
It seems I'm one of the very few who don't like the fuel pellets idea
As far as the sov fuel bonus and faction tower bonus goes, make the blocks like mined ore. All produced fuel would take 400 blocks needed to refine, and the same would go for production where the same ingredients make 400 blocks instead of 4. This would give small towers a usage of 100 blocks per hour. Faction % and sov % would in turn be easy to calculate for the 5 year old code (with minor tweaks so it rounds to nearest whole block.)
About time on the anchor/unanchor/online timers. |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
81
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 09:39:00 -
[723] - Quote
i like it the way it is proposed in DEV blog... and please CCP dont listen to players that are against everything... but listen players that show you the problems that you didn't see... |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
81
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 09:41:00 -
[724] - Quote
kil this |
ED209X
South Park Development
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 09:52:00 -
[725] - Quote
Bloodhands wrote:It seems I'm one of the very few who don't like the fuel pellets idea As far as the sov fuel bonus and faction tower bonus goes, make the blocks like mined ore. All produced fuel would take 400 blocks needed to refine, and the same would go for production where the same ingredients make 400 blocks instead of 4. This would give small towers a usage of 100 blocks per hour. Faction % and sov % would in turn be easy to calculate for the 5 year old code (with minor tweaks so it rounds to nearest whole block.) About time on the anchor/unanchor/online timers.
I'm with you.... Not liking these extra steps for fueling my pos. |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:09:00 -
[726] - Quote
so ccp greyscale, is this going get the same reply from you to customer feedback as the anom nerf?
or are you actually gonna act on this feedback before rolling out changes that effect everyone?
Quote:Hi again,
Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.
We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.
We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.
That's all for today, -Greyscale
how many accounts did you cost ccp with this one btw? CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:12:00 -
[727] - Quote
1. that would be nice, but like i said, you have to start somewhere, besides we have EvE HQ for that
2. I think that may be missing the point slightly I understand that its nice to save fuel, but keeping track of the different fittings on towers to keep track of their different consumption rates gets ridiculous fast . . . how about a compromise? a 25% reduction in liquid ozone/heavy water consumption
3. CCP already answered that one.
CCP Dev Blog wrote:The starbase system doesn't allow for multiple simultaneous fuel types, so we have to switch from one to the other during downtime.
I suppose they could rewrite the whole starbase system to allow for multiple fuel types but if they did that, id be upset if that was all that changed.
I agree that CCP could easily do 32/16/8 blocks and give the faction tower whiners their discount and sov whiners our discount et all but this is definitely going to be better than the way it used to be. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
91
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:12:00 -
[728] - Quote
Even for WH people, the changes should bring some advantages despite the extra step. Just import the ice as always, dump it with your PI output in an ammo array, and do as many runs as you can without the need for more math.
Ammo arrays are easy enough to fit, much easier than a CHA. But it would be nice of CCP to increase their cargo to match component arrays, or allow blocks to be built in component arrays too.
For everyone else, I don't see how this is less convenient. If you were buying fuel from market, this simplifies your life enormously. If you were doing PI to feed your tower, you were already doing a lot more work than assembling the blocks will be. But if the extra step bothers you, just sell your PI products and buy the assembled blocks. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:16:00 -
[729] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Even for WH people, the changes should bring some advantages despite the extra step. Just import the ice as always, dump it with your PI output in an ammo array, and do as many runs as you can without the need for more math.
Ammo arrays are easy enough to fit, much easier than a CHA. But it would be nice of CCP to increase their cargo to match component arrays, or allow blocks to be built in component arrays too.
For everyone else, I don't see how this is less convenient. If you were buying fuel from market, this simplifies your life enormously. If you were doing PI to feed your tower, you were already doing a lot more work than assembling the blocks will be. But if the extra step bothers you, just sell your PI products and buy the assembled blocks. my only regret is that I have but one "like" to give. |
ED209X
South Park Development
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:25:00 -
[730] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Even for WH people, the changes should bring some advantages despite the extra step. Just import the ice as always, dump it with your PI output in an ammo array, and do as many runs as you can without the need for more math.
Ammo arrays are easy enough to fit, much easier than a CHA. But it would be nice of CCP to increase their cargo to match component arrays, or allow blocks to be built in component arrays too.
For everyone else, I don't see how this is less convenient. If you were buying fuel from market, this simplifies your life enormously. If you were doing PI to feed your tower, you were already doing a lot more work than assembling the blocks will be. But if the extra step bothers you, just sell your PI products and buy the assembled blocks.
How is more steps to build your fuel an advantage?
|
|
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:31:00 -
[731] - Quote
ED209X wrote: How is more steps to build your fuel an advantage?
Not the building, but the fuelling...
In the future you only have to have the right "Pellet/Block/Cell whatever" and put them in till the fuel bay is full.
No more calculation with CPU / PG with 10 differen towers / large / small / med./ faction / non faction, sov / non sov a.s.o.
And for the Building:
just multiply the figures and go...
DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=70361#post70361 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:32:00 -
[732] - Quote
Sigras wrote:sukee tsayah wrote:Sigras wrote:sukee tsayah wrote:Yeah I definitely have a constructive suggestion that would solve this problem and not ruin all the "good" changes that this update brings. Actually the solution is very simple.
1) go ahead with the fuel blocks 2) do not reduce the amount of POS fuel needed to run a small/medium POS 3) get rid of the silly idea of COs that have to be anchored and can be destroyed. that idea was just so awful that it's hard to put into words just how bad that idea is
Why are you posting about this stuff in the wrong thread? it seems you dont have any problems with the POS changes but just want another place to whine about the customs office idea which, btw has its own thread here Why did you respond to a post you know nothing about? Go back and re-read my original post, or just stop trolling. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=324859#post324859 ok, i read that original post, which, btw did not assist in my opinion of your argument . . . it seems that youre ticked off because the crazy amount of isk you were making from robotics with little risk is being taken away from you in two ways because #1 it takes less robotics to run small/medium towers and #2 you cant do PI in low sec/0.0 that you dont fight for. To that I have two things to say #1 you know that PI makes more than robotics right? #2 oh no, you might have to join with some other people and fight for some space . . . its not like thats what the game is about or anything . . .
I don't believe you read my post. If you did you would have read that this is the message I'm receiving from a lot of new players in my alliance. It has nothing to do with me making isk. I have enough isk to do whatever I want.
So to go back to the subject, new players will be driven to high sec, because old players in rich corps want their POS process to be "cheaper and simpler"
|
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:33:00 -
[733] - Quote
Kralin Ignatov wrote:mkint wrote:Old system: Do math, haul fuel to POS
New system: do easier math, haul fuel to POS, haul assembly arrays to POS, re-manufacture fuel
This whole things sounds like another nerf to low/null/w-space PI for those who make their own fuel. Nope. Since you can't get all the ice fuel from w-space anyways, and unlikely to get all componets from the planets, you'll be buying fuel blocks in k-space anyways. easier math, easier to haul, etc. As for low sec / null sec, you are gonna need to refine that ice anyways, which requires a refining array or station already. This just requires more uses of production slots. So I hope CCP plans to boost those.
You have no clue.
Most wormhole corps produce all the PI based fuel components themselves because hauling fuel into w-space is a pain in the arse.
Now aside from the fact that we still have to haul in the ice materials, we also have to process the crap into fuel blocks.
Plus we lose the fuel efficiency of the faction towers, which everyone uses for especially for that bonus, because hauling fuel materials is a pain in the arse.
This change is a boon to people not producing their own fuel, it just adds more work for everyone that does.
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
93
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:33:00 -
[734] - Quote
ED209X wrote: How is more steps to build your fuel an advantage?
Simplification. You don't need to worry about how much of each fuel type you need and mess around shift-dragging stacks of fuel from hangar to cargo/fuel bay. Put it all in one place and install the fuel build job, which will take care of the numbers. Whatever PI materials are left, that's your surplus to take to market or whatever you do with it.
The change may not be big for a single tower, but as soon as you have a couple, you'll notice how much play time you save. |
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:36:00 -
[735] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:how many accounts did you cost ccp with this one btw?
No one is going to quit just because their corp has to adjust their fuelling processes you giant sperging ******. |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:36:00 -
[736] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Even for WH people, the changes should bring some advantages despite the extra step. Just import the ice as always, dump it with your PI output in an ammo array, and do as many runs as you can without the need for more math.
Ammo arrays are easy enough to fit, much easier than a CHA. But it would be nice of CCP to increase their cargo to match component arrays, or allow blocks to be built in component arrays too.
For everyone else, I don't see how this is less convenient. If you were buying fuel from market, this simplifies your life enormously. If you were doing PI to feed your tower, you were already doing a lot more work than assembling the blocks will be. But if the extra step bothers you, just sell your PI products and buy the assembled blocks.
it maybe more simple, sorta(i never found it hard to count, i get that soem poeple do) but a cost hike of 30% min is in my view extreem, especially when its just becasue of lazy programming.
1. remove LO and HW from the blocks- let them run as normal 2. increase the number of blocks in each batch to allow for sov and faction tower discounts 3. dont implment this at the same time when pi is undergoing a massive change with the player planet things(do these teams even talk to each other ffs)
CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:37:00 -
[737] - Quote
Doctor Ungabungas wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:how many accounts did you cost ccp with this one btw? No one is going to quit just because their corp has to adjust their fuelling processes you giant sperging ******.
lol i know, i asked how many peopel quit cos of that change not this one. are you really that dumb? CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:37:00 -
[738] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote: 1. remove LO and HW from the blocks- let them run as normal 2. increase the number of blocks in each batch to allow for sov and faction tower discounts 3. dont implment this at the same time when pi is undergoing a massive change with the player planet things(do these teams even talk to each other ffs)
1. No don't. 2. No don't. 3. Yes do. |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:39:00 -
[739] - Quote
Doctor Ungabungas wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote: 1. remove LO and HW from the blocks- let them run as normal 2. increase the number of blocks in each batch to allow for sov and faction tower discounts 3. dont implment this at the same time when pi is undergoing a massive change with the player planet things(do these teams even talk to each other ffs)
1. No don't. 2. No don't. 3. Yes do.
1. I dont care 2. Yes please do so! 3. I dont care. DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=70361#post70361 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:42:00 -
[740] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:Doctor Ungabungas wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:how many accounts did you cost ccp with this one btw? No one is going to quit just because their corp has to adjust their fuelling processes you giant sperging ******. lol i know, i asked how many peopel quit cos of that change not this one. are you really that dumb?
No, I was pointing out that the very thin connection you were attempting to draw was full of ****. And I did that pretty well since your immediate response was 'oh no I didn't mean that at all'.
Very smooth. |
|
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:44:00 -
[741] - Quote
mkint wrote:Old system: Do math, haul fuel to POS
New system: do easier math, haul fuel to POS, haul assembly arrays to POS, re-manufacture fuel
This whole things sounds like another nerf to low/null/w-space PI for those who make their own fuel.
Amen. +1 |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:48:00 -
[742] - Quote
Doctor Ungabungas wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:Doctor Ungabungas wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:how many accounts did you cost ccp with this one btw? No one is going to quit just because their corp has to adjust their fuelling processes you giant sperging ******. lol i know, i asked how many peopel quit cos of that change not this one. are you really that dumb? No, I was pointing out that the very thin connection you were attempting to draw was full of ****. And I did that pretty well since your immediate response was 'oh no I didn't mean that at all'. Very smooth.
no i was comparing customer service regarding changes to the game and the respose of ccp to customer feed back. please reread if you still dont see it
Quote:so ccp greyscale, is this going get the same reply from you to customer feedback as the anom nerf?
or are you actually gonna act on this feedback before rolling out changes that effect everyone? CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
ChiefAlex
Cha Ching LtD Ewoks
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:48:00 -
[743] - Quote
Quote:We reduced effective robotics consumption on medium and small towers because it was judged to be better than increasing the consumption on large towers
Quote:Towers will use 1 block/hour for small, 2 blocks/hour for medium and 4 blocks/hour for large Making large towers consume 4x as much as before is better then... increasing their consumtion? LOL CCP. |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:50:00 -
[744] - Quote
ChiefAlex wrote:Quote:We reduced effective robotics consumption on medium and small towers because it was judged to be better than increasing the consumption on large towers
Quote:Towers will use 1 block/hour for small, 2 blocks/hour for medium and 4 blocks/hour for large Making large towers consume 4x as much as before is better then... increasing their consumtion? LOL CCP.
1 robotics = 4 Blocks = 1 h of running a large POS.
little pice of advice: read the Dev Blog bevor posting or at least one of the 30 Postes which already pointed that out... DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=70361#post70361 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |
Grukni
Shimai of New Eden N E X O
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:52:00 -
[745] - Quote
Doctor Ungabungas wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:how many accounts did you cost ccp with this one btw? No one is going to quit just because their corp has to adjust their fuelling processes you giant sperging ******.
I think what he meant is that it's all about CCP's attitude of not taking into account some valid points brought by some fellow forumers and giving no reason why. They should, at least, explain the reasons and objectives they want to achieve not taking into account player feedback. It has already been stated that they want to bring ease, but there must be more, like a hidden agenda, when they want to drop the bonuses of faction towers and sov, for example, and do listen to our whines to increase fuel granularity. An explanation on this from CCP would be welcomed. |
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:56:00 -
[746] - Quote
Quote:We reduced effective robotics consumption on medium and small towers because it was judged to be better than increasing the consumption on large towers
"judged to be better"
Better for whom? The people who now have to pay less to fuel their POS? Because it certainly isn't better for new players who are dependent on PI for their isk, while at the same time having to deal with the ridiculous idea of destructable COs in the near future and DUST later on.
As a matter of fact, just who does CCP think is going to pay mercenaries to defend Planetary Interaction buildings when CCP is doing everything in its power to nerf the living crap out of it?
"judged to be better"
I thought you guys learned from your mistakes. Ask the community first. Don't make these "judgement calls" without feedback. Good lord. |
Eperor
Skyforger Tactical Narcotics Team
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:59:00 -
[747] - Quote
good start oN POS ting reworking. MY POS mangers wil be happy to hear that. |
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:59:00 -
[748] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:Quote:so ccp greyscale, is this going get the same reply from you to customer feedback as the anom nerf?
or are you actually gonna act on this feedback before rolling out changes that effect everyone?
Amen. +1
I'm keeping this drum beating. At least after they make this stupid change I'll know that I did everything in my power to stop it. |
ChiefAlex
Cha Ching LtD Ewoks
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 11:01:00 -
[749] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:ChiefAlex wrote:Quote:We reduced effective robotics consumption on medium and small towers because it was judged to be better than increasing the consumption on large towers
Quote:Towers will use 1 block/hour for small, 2 blocks/hour for medium and 4 blocks/hour for large Making large towers consume 4x as much as before is better then... increasing their consumtion? LOL CCP. 1 robotics = 4 Blocks = 1 h of running a large POS. little pice of advice: read the Dev Blog bevor posting or at least one of the 30 Postes which already pointed that out...
My bad. Maybe this fact should be been noted more then with a half sentence in the devblog... |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
138
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 11:03:00 -
[750] - Quote
Grukni wrote:Doctor Ungabungas wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:how many accounts did you cost ccp with this one btw? No one is going to quit just because their corp has to adjust their fuelling processes you giant sperging ******. I think what he meant is that it's all about CCP's attitude of not taking into account some valid points brought up by some fellow forumers and giving no reason why. They should, at least, explain the reasons and objectives they want to achieve not taking into account player feedback. It has already been stated that they want to bring ease, but there must be more, like a hidden agenda, when they want to drop the bonuses of faction towers and sov, for example, and do listen to our whines to increase fuel granularity. It is not like they missed this point, it is wholly intentional. An explanation on this from CCP would be welcomed.
yeh that was my point.
anom nerf effecting 0.0 residence, there were many reasons why that chnage was bad listed and ignored.(we know how well that change worked out) the pos fuel change effects 0.0 residence primarly(forget faction towers). there are many reasons why removing the sov discount is bad and all have been listed. will they also be ignored this time round? CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |