| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
59
   |
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:So "lockdown blueprints" now becomes almost entirely useless? We will also have to move those blueprints between multiple hangers when we're using the assembly items, and goodbye to things such as remote filtering and such?
*Scratches head* ... was this designed by someone in photoshop and outlook by any chance? Thus ignoring such trivial things as... ease of use.
I have no earthly idea why a BPO needs to be moved to a starbase in order to use it, when all of us indy types have deliberately trained skills to avoid having to do that, to manage them all centrally (like anyone in real life would do).
Fix things like batch creation.
Indeed ... not being able to pool your hundreds of BPO's in one place (in station) and research remotely, pretty much makes POS's obsolete for research IMO .... no sense risking valuable BPO's at the POS .... imaging making hundreds of trips back and forth from station to POS to carry the bpo's to the right lab, etc. too ... goodbye BPO researching, was nice knowing ya ... oh wait, no, you sucked the whole time (because of bad UI) and are now sucking worse (but with greatly improved UI) .... Yay??
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:Some proposed changes make sense, but some are not really thought out.
The removal of standings for POSes is a bad idea both because it wil promote POS spamming and because it's unfair to the people who endured those long standing grinds CCP forced beforehand.
The need to phisically move BPs is also going to be a terrible change, wasting players' time and adding danger with no tangible reward. it would make sense if a phisically moved BP would provide an advantage of some kind (shorter times, for example) versus the comfort of remote action, but as it's been noted already, it's again unfair against people who trained specific skills, but even more it's farcical to introduce in New Eden, Anno Domini 23341, an activity which is outdated on old XXI century Earth.
...
Yep ....
With this change CCP is actually further discouraging player interaction ... they are instead encouraging industrialists to create SOLO research/manufacturing corps even more than before ... since you can no longer feasibly lock down or manage BPO's via hangar tab permissions in station (but must instead transport them physically to the POS where no security exists), it is too much risk to allow anyone else in corp ... SOLO will be the only way to go > working completely against "Player Engagement".
And pretty much making Faction Standings useless .... great, just great, nice to know all my effort was for nothing ... |
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Sarin Gaston wrote:"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements "
Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth. it was a waste of your time the correct solution is an apology and axing that atrocious mechanic forever not "well sarin gaston had to do it once so we must have everyone suffer equally"
It removes a lot of player achievement mechanics, which motivate a lot of players ..... wouldn't we want more achievements rather than less?
Seems to be making the game a lot more shallow rather than deeper and richer .... people who don't like these mechanics really wouldn't seem to be affected much anyway .... why change it? |
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Querns wrote:Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote:
2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this? Not really. These changes are about tilting the game in the direction it's supposed to be tilted -- you must endure risk for reward. A significant portion of the changes in Rubicon and in the new expansion are in the removal of low-to-no risk activities such as reprocessing, research, and manufacturing. That being said, if you do wish to eliminate risk, you can still utilize station-based RAM lines.
Not sure what the "reward" is supposed to be though now? .... Why would anyone anchor a POS anymore? Why would anyone grind Faction standing anymore? .... Instead just find a cheap out of the way station where you can keep your high value BPO's safe .... this change basically removes (hisec) POS's as a game element. |
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Makoto Priano wrote:I hate to be that guy, but: any content for shooting-at-people stuff, or any development along the explore-new-shenanigans and make-new-implants realm?
There will be POS's everywhere and those POS's are now slightly more likely to contain BPO's. I'm pretty sure the shooting-at-people demographic is getting an indirect buff here ;)
Those POS's will no longer contain ANY high value BPO's unfortunately .... and it will be trivial to re-anchor one ... so go ahead, have at'em.
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Querns wrote:The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS. But the dev blog says "The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked". So clearly you must be wrong! ;)
Indeed ... why even defend them? Why even attack them? No one would be crazy enough to put any high value BPO's in POS's now ... |
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.
30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers.
Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS.
No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.
That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.
I wonder what the logic is behind this.
And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is:
EVE: Contraction
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
Commander Venture wrote:Lors Dornick wrote:This will be fun.
Thank you CCP (and possibly CSM).
The age of Aquarius is over, this is the age of Vulcan ;)
Actually if I had to name this expansion, it'd be after Vulcanus, smith of the ancient Roman gods. Like industry in EVE, he was the unwanted child that still got the job done, the Tyrion Lannister of the Roman pantheon.
A better name: EVE CONTRACTION
- Obsoleting of POS research labs (mobile labs)
- Obsoleting of Faction Standings
- Obsoleting of Drone Interfacing V skill
- T2 Drone nerfs
Have we heard about anything actually being ADDED yet? Or just many of the deeper and long term mechanics (longer training time skills, longer term achievements like Faction Standings) being made more short term / less worth while? |
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Unezka Turigahl wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:
The sand is being drained away from the sandbox. That's all I'm saying. Eve is slowly starting to look like a theme park with no barriers of entry, no cooperation or interaction required to achieve serious results or goals.
Barriers of entry are more of a themepark trait, not sandbox. There is nothing sandboxy about having to grind through a billion quests to unlock the ability for your character to set up a factory.
If EVE were purely a sandbox, there wouldn't be skills to train, nor any PVE content, nor NPC's ....
EVE works as a game ecosystem because it is a hybrid of multiple game types - sandbox, pve, everything in between ... it can suck in people who would never try PVP, and gradually expose them to it and even get them to try it.
With such an amazingly integrated game system that is able to draw in players of all types, why would anyone want to destroy that by restricting certain types of gameplay? No amount of forcing will get non-pvp players to magically convert into pvp players (they'll simply go elsewhere) ... might as well instead maintain a game system complex and deep enough to allow both types to thrive, with even the non-pvp players being subject to various levels of pvp depending on what activities they participate in. |
| |
|