|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
1260
   |
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:We've been dying to talk about these changes and can't wait for your feedback.
Moving away from a fixed npc pricing structure like this appears to be a good thing.
Actually on reflection, I see that it should drive players to re-distribute themselves and their possessions to less centralised locations. Ships could die, possessions could be lost, this is all good.
on an un-related note ....
Can the same thing be done to trading in general with regard to sales taxes and broker fees ?
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
1260
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Squelch wrote:Soz if this has already been mentioned, but where you mention the new R.A.M requirements (in your example, you'll need 60 R.A.M where you needed 1 before), that will effectivley de-value any current stocks of R.A.M by a huge amount (example, 60 times less valuable).
Will existing stocks be multiplied to compensate, or is this something that players with R.A.M stocks will just have to deal with?
Additionally, will existing sources of R.A.M items have their drop quantities increased?
but won't it make them more valuable by increasing demand ?
sorry if it's a basic question, but I don't really get involved in the industrial side of eve.
except as a consumer of end products. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
1260
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:Squelch wrote:Soz if this has already been mentioned, but where you mention the new R.A.M requirements (in your example, you'll need 60 R.A.M where you needed 1 before), that will effectivley de-value any current stocks of R.A.M by a huge amount (example, 60 times less valuable).
Will existing stocks be multiplied to compensate, or is this something that players with R.A.M stocks will just have to deal with?
Additionally, will existing sources of R.A.M items have their drop quantities increased? but won't it make them more valuable by increasing demand ? sorry if it's a basic question, but I don't really get involved in the industrial side of eve. except as a consumer of end products. One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch. The RAM BPOs will output 100RAM instead of one like now with the same min requirements. Market orders will prolly be multiplied by 100 while the asking price per RAM is divided by 100. I hope they decrease the RAM volume in a similar fashion.
aah, gotcha
I guess I skimmed through that part of the blog a little too quickly
thanks for the explanation. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
1260
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Calorn Marthor wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:About being able to anchor POSes anywhere in high sec: Does that mean the very high security systems will become available? For example, right now you cannot anchor a POS in a 1.0 system. Will that change? Can someone answer this one please? Will we be able to set up towers in 0.8+ sec?
if I read the blog correctly
only the systems listed on the rookie systems page will be out of bounds (and places like Jita .. Jita was mentioned specifically too.) |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
1261
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:this is what i've been looking forwards to for a while, i'm very happy with this
@kitty bear, Calorn Marthor, Vincent Athena, the list of systems you can't do PI in might be a good indicator as to where you won't be able to erect a starbase? was it planetary interaction or something else that had restricted systems :S e: there we go
looks like it's going to be both lists then
(I didn't even know there was a PI restriction list either)
that's still an awful lot of systems left to use though, so I don't see any real reason for people whinging about those restrictions  |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
1267
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? The issue is that wardeccing to remove an inactive POS requires several things. 1) A 50m ISK payment 2) Waiting 24 hours 3) Assembling a fleet to do 20-50m EHP of damage (that's four to ten battleship hours, this isn't lowsec where dreads are an option) No requirement is onerous on its own (except the EHP of a large POS, ugh, ban them in highsec already), however, combined they make sure players can't really remove POSes on a whim. POS removal in highsec is a methodical, planned, deliberate operation. But putting one up need not be. Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon.
maybe after 30 days of inactivity they could become un owned and offlined
scoopable to the first person that finds it available
no need for wardecs
no need for tedious pos bashing
of course I don't know how feasible something like is within eve's coding infrastructure
but if it is, does it sound reasonable ?
|
|
|
| |
|