|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
992
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Excellent! Thank you CCP - I thoroughly approve of this expansion theme! Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
992
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cod oil is very good for you - lots of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. But remove extra materials anyway. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
994
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Can we please have a blueprint silo for POS instead of having to muck around with putting them in each lab? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
994
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
Please lower resists on offline POS. There should be a more significant risk to letting them run out of fuel. At the moment I just put it offline when I have finishes my jobs because it is perfectly safe. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
994
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
I am worried about reduced copy time devaluing invention. Please nerf T2 BPOs.
No, I don't have any ;) But they still need to be nerfed otherwise newer industry players are at an enormous disadvantage. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Entity wrote:So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?
I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated eight years was 7.9 too long Exactly. Yes, I do want those BPOs in space. This is EVE. There should be risk. I am staggered that such an old player thinks the current situation is in any way acceptable. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. T2 profits will crash with a better interface. Prices might not, depending on the slot fees, but profits will. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
Halia Thorak wrote:Zappity wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. T2 profits will crash with a better interface. Prices might not, depending on the slot fees, but profits will. The problem isn't with the interface its the reduction in complexity... T2 production should be more complex then T1 not just gated by skills. To be honest currently the skills aren't really even much of a gate into T2. Its the weeks of research and understanding the market and refine your production lines to make everything profitable. Remove the needs for POS's and remove then need for invention and now its just T1 manufacturing with more items.. that are nicely displayed for your convenience. On the note of T2 BPO's does anyone actually think anyone will use them to produce anymore lol they're just going to be used to print isk in the form of T2 bpc's. Depending on how low they make copy times you could see the list of profitable Inventions be reduced even further then it is already. Couple this with making the system easier and i can see a lot of people dumping the idea of industry as a career, and more just another passive way to make isk. I agree with what you are saying about complexity. It should be harder to efficiently produce T2.
But the current interface is such a dog that I believe it is a bottleneck of its own. I have five characters capable of T2 production. I can rarely endure the clicks long enough to cycle through them all. Certainly not every day. But if it weresl simpler I would easily double my T2 production. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Tippia wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote: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. But again, that's the main problem: what counts as GÇ£inactiveGÇ¥ or as GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥? Just being offline isn't enough GÇö there are plenty of legitimate reasons for leaving a tower offline. If there's a wish to remove the grind part on properly abandoned POSes, then the idea of a hacking deployable linked earlier is a far more equitable solution since it only works on towers no-one actually cares about. Either way, removing the waiting period to anything less than the time it takes using a wardec is just a disaster waiting to happen since you have now invalidated a large point of wardecs. If a tower has been out of fuel for a full week, it's 'properly abandoned'. It should be able to be taken down (or possibly stolen if this can be coded) by anyone that wants to. Wardecs would absolutely remain the main way you'd go after anyone with a POS that is actually using it. Wardeccing a corp where noone has logged on in six weeks is not some exciting activity. Absolutely. There should be cost or risk associated with allowing your tower to go offline. At the moment it is the only strategy that makes sense if you use it occasionally (like I do). Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
I am entirely supporting of removing the standings grind. I don't think grinding should be part of the game at all.
If you could buy standings (as in tags for sec status) then I wouldn't mind retaining the standings requirement. But not if you have to grind those mind numbing missions. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
E6o5 wrote:Quote:Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course). Are there still restircted to moons or how is anywhere defined exactly? I don't agree with the removal of standing requrements:
- it kills a mini profession (corp creation, tower setup service)
- it removes consequences from the game (you can have terrible standings standings with a faction by having fought them for years but can setup a tower in their territory)
Yes, still restricted to moons. Flick through the dev posts for confirmation.
I am very pleased standings are being removed. I don't like having to interact with any NPC in game, least of all the awful missions for grinding status. It is entirely artificial and a complete waste of time. NPC grinds is not what should define EVE. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
At the risk of giving poor Dinsdale an aneurism, what about allowing TCUs (or whatever) in highsec? These would not affect gameplay in any way other than giving the TCU holder a share of the industry fees that currently go to NPCs. For bonus points, allow the TCU holder to apply an additional percentage above the weighted 0-14% rate defined by usage.
It would definitely fuel highsec conflict. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:33:00 -
[13] - Quote
Royaldo wrote:Its good, industry needed some help. However, I am a little ... well not impressed.
Tbh it sounds like a boring expansion. "Volvo, its boxy but good". Kinda like that.
The last good expansion was the wormhole one. Cus it added new CONTENT. SEXY CONTENT.
Just saying, this is a bit dry and boring. You have clearly not done much industry. It badly needed an expansion. Or two. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:44:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution. Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec?
EHP also needs to come down. The clutter in wormhole space tells us the problem is not limited only to highsec protection. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:59:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Zappity wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec? Have you seen the number of offline POS in locations that are actually desirable? There aren't many. You know why? Because they got blowed up, is why! Heck, I've seen corporations lose abandoned hi sec POSes to a single pilot, because that solo pilot had the gumption to wardec the holding corporation (or alliance) and take the risk that someone would shoot back. So you can take your "oh noes, 500 battleship minutes" whining and vamoose! I said nothing about 500 battleship hours. And I will certainly not vamoose!
There are thousands of the bloody things offline throughout highsec simply because letting them go offline is extremely safe. Why should it be? They are valuable assets and should be at risk if you decide to let the proper protection fail. If they are not fuelled and protected by a shield they should be far more vulnerable than they are.
Honestly, 99% resists on an OFFLINE stick? Please. That is simply a hangover from the days when POS were tied to sov and should be fixed. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪbut that just leads back to the same old question: how do you determine that it is GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥. The only sensible way to do that is to see whether or not someone is interested in defending it. That means maintaining the wardec mechanic (which is already being used successfully for exactly this purpose) GÇö letting people do 15-minute drive-by:s does not offer that ability to determine anything.
This leads to two main considerations: first, any kind of GÇ£remove abandoned POSesGÇ¥ mechanic must include a mechanism to determine which are genuinely determined and which are not. This means having a significant enough delay to let the defenders mount a defence. Second, such a mechanic cannot be allowed to be faster than wardecs since that just means it will be abused to bypass wardecs against legit targets. With the removal of standings requirements, that abuse would reach epidemic proportions.
If you want to get rid of the HP grind, that's one thing (see the hacking deployable idea linked earlier), but getting rid of the delay simply cannot happen without causing all kinds of issues. Why can't offline = abandoned? Why should you be able to lower defensive shields without consequence? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Zappity wrote:Why can't offline = abandoned? Because there's little to no correlation between the two. Abandonment isn't just a state GÇö it's an intent, or perhaps more accurately a lack thereof. An offline POS is about as abandoned as a ship in your hangar, and for much the same reasons: just because it is current in a state of non-use does not mean that it is not intended to be used, and there are plenty of reason for not having it in use it every second of every day. Unless you devise a way to measure that intent (something that wardecs already do), you have no way of determining whether the POS you're eyeing is abandoned or not. Quote:Why should you be able to lower defensive shields without consequence? You're not. If you do, you become an instant target for wardecs (which, by the way, creates consequences for more than just your POS). I simply do not agree with your opinions on this topic. The fundamental difference between an offline POS and an inactive ship is that the ship is in a station. We are repeatedly told that when you undock you consent to PvP and by this definition those ships are untouchable.
A POS is in space, and if you don't take care of it then it should be at great risk. Taking care of it should include keeping it fueled. Your comment about an offline POS instantly becoming a target for wardecs is patently false. I have had several POS offline for quite a while in highsec without any problem. Were they hackable, or have lower EHP, I doubt they would still be there.
It really boils down to a simple principle: if you're not willing to fight for what you have in EVE you don't deserve it, and you should lose it. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:CCP should reintroduce T2 BPO but instead of a lottery, high skilled inventors should be able to invest a lot of isk to make one. Plus one year and you would have an extremely high barrier to entry for new players. And vastly diminished profit margins. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:A POS is in space, and if you don't take care of it then it should be at great risk. It already is. If you're not willing to fight for your POS, you will lose it. That's the whole point of wardecs, after all. That's also why actual willingness to defend the POS, or lack thereof, is a valid measure of abandonment, whereas just sitting offline is not. One is a state with no meaning; the other is a show of intent. Not true. You have already told us that putting it offline is a valid strategy when the POS is not required. It is a valid strategy because it is SAFE to do so in highsec. You are not defending it all all but rather relying on the mind numbing tedium of a highsec POS takedown to keep you safe.
Can you eject from a ship and leave it floating safely in space? Whether you intend to return for it is irrelevant - it will still be just as stolen when you return.
Make it risky to let a POS run out of fuel. Make it risky when a defensive shield is lowered. If you let your POS run out of fuel I want to be able to pinch it! You have essentially left it unlocked and undefended, regardless of your intent. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1000
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Zappity wrote:Not true. You have already told us that putting it offline is a valid strategy when the POS is not required. It is a valid strategy because it is SAFE to do so in highsec. GǪwell, apart from the whole Gǣbecomes a target for immediate destructionGǥ bit, sure. Our definitions of 'immediate destruction' are clearly different. Mine does not include 'leaving a POS offline for several months in perfect safety'. Like one of mine has been in The Forge.
The only reason that highsec is littered with literally thousands of offline POS is that it is very safe. Honestly, I am surprised at your defence of such low risk mechanics. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1011
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:17:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:However people should still keep in mind that any changes to copy times will benefit the inventor far, far more than the T2 BPO owner. This is not true. Copying is not the invention bottleneck. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1011
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:46:00 -
[22] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc like seriously people use some brains here Have fuel use scale with active slots. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1011
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
industrial foreman wrote:What are the chances everyone says F it and just builds in Jita 4-4 and pushes the 14% cost onto the items? Zero. Because not everyone is that stupid and the intelligent producers will immediately and savagely undercut the unintelligent ones. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1012
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
Dinsdale, isn't it just possible (however unlikely) that CCP might be trying to end up with viable industry in all parts of space? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1013
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 01:01:00 -
[25] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Zappity wrote:Weaselior wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc like seriously people use some brains here Have fuel use scale with active slots. They did *away* with that very system a few years back because it made logistics a freakin nightmare. That's a shame because it could solve both the abandoned POS and slot limitations. Decreasing 'idle' POS fuel use significantly would make it easier to keep a POS online for longer. You could then take a harder line to decrease offline EHP, making it easier to clear abandoned POS in highsec.
It really isn't hard to monitor fuel requirements by script or app. You will need new calculations anyway to account for the effect of fluctuating NPC load fees on cost anyway. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1013
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 01:59:00 -
[26] - Quote
AFK Hauler wrote:Few things...
1. Can't wait for a FW corp to hang a POS in an opposing faction system because there are no standing requirements! - Bad decision IMHO to remove standing for anchoring in empire... This is the worst of the features I have seen yet.
I can see it now - Sit in your POS just inside the shield and spawn NPC navy ships for your POS to blap all day long. Have an alt sit outside the shield and salvage till the cows come home. Go AFK with an MTU and salvage drones just to make it that much more of an insult.
Bad idea, really. Just get rid of faction navies. They are a blight in a supposedly player-driven sandbox anyway.
I am delighted that standings are being stood down, as it were. They are annoying, artificial mechanics. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1013
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
AFK Hauler wrote:The standing requirement serve the purpose to segregate smaller corps from larger ones. Large corps cannot hope to grind standings for a 0.6 or 0.7 system so they head to low or nulsex when no moons are available. Now we will have even less players heading to low or nul - or at least delaying their exodus. That may have been the original intent but it certainly does not work this way in practice. If a larger corp wants a highsec POS a single member with appropriate standings can just start a new corp, anchor, and then transfer membership/join alliance. This change will have bugger all effect on 'exodus to nulsex'. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1013
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:22:00 -
[28] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Kethry Avenger wrote:I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why. In my opinion, it is an un-fun mechanic that adds nothing to gameplay. It also hinders players from becoming industrialists. Plus, a POS will (probably) no longer be essential for industry. So we should remove everything from the game that is "un-fun"? What about miner bumping? Suicide ganking? Those are definitely un-fun for me. On the other hand, I happily grind faction standings because I know it gives (or used to give) an advantage over other players who will be more restricted in their choice of POS location. Standings requirements add significant gameplay, there are even corporations based on giving people the benefits of standings:
- Estel Arador corp services
- Imiarr Timshae's "The Standings Correction Agency"
- various POS-erection agents who join the corp, boost the standings, then leave the corp once your POS is anchored
Just because you find them annoying doesn't mean they don't add meaning to the game. I agree with what you are saying to an extent. But the manner in which you have to gain those standings - missions - is indefensible. If CCP introduced tags for standings I would have no problem with standings at all. But I refuse to grind and mechanics which force me to are bad. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1013
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:24:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:We need more lube, not science. You're not even getting science. Invention changes aren't until autumn or winter. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1014
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:11:00 -
[30] - Quote
Steijn wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Max Kolonko wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array? Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details. Wait, what?! So what is my incentive to pay 300 000 000 isk a month for fuel if i still have to pay for production slots???? Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. There has still not been a satisfactory explanation as to WHY the scaling taxes apply to POS owners. Its okay for you to keep saying wait until the Blog appears, but thats not an answer. Because slots are disappearing and the new limit on how many jobs you can run is the scaling NPC charges. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1015
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:45:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:probag Bear wrote:Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. My chief complaint: I have about 25,000 blueprints and blueprint copies and more than a half-dozen POSes. The only reason I can deal with such a quagmire is because of stations and containers. Currently, in order to produce a specific item, all I have to do is go to a certain station, open a certain container, and move some of its contents to the station floor. Under this new system, judging by the way you phrase it ("like other materials"), I would need to do one of two things: 1. Let all my blueprints pile up in various POS arrays, and thus have to scroll through at least hundreds of items every time I start a job. 2. Store all my blueprints in nice organized containers as I do now, and thus every time I start a job be forced to go to every one of my POSes, individually open every single POS array I'm using, scroll to the right container, and remove a simple handful of blueprints each time. #2 would be a lot more clicks, a lot of downtime as I warp between POSes, and in general a lot of annoyance. Even if the S&I interface is revamped to where I don't need to click the exact same 8 spots on my screen 10 times for every character I own, the amount of time wasted by clunky game mechanics would still increase significantly. Long story short, when you work on your filtering mechanisms, please keep in mind that many of us manage more than a single POS and definitely more than just a handful of arrays, cycle through several dozen blueprint types rather than only producing Megathrons, and in general go to extremes that you, Developers, may not expect. You will be able to see all your blueprints in assembly arrays etc and remotely start jobs from containers, so that should cover your use case. EDIT: There is also a nice search / filter interface, you will get some time on SiSi to give us feedback on how this works before we go live too. Can someone please explain what this means? Will we still have to put blueprints on the array floors or will we be able to run jobs using a blueprint in a secure container at a POS? Thinking access rights as well as clicks. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1015
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 21:13:00 -
[32] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP are feeding you (nullsec community) with golden spoon ...what the hell you are adapting for ? the new wealth income they are introducing to you ? Oh my. The problem is that:
Many of the people in this thread wrote:Gah! ****! Change!!! We're all doomed! Pathetic. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1020
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 21:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
Lisa Dorn wrote:Thank you CCP for making Standings useless.
I would agree if you only would make it available for certain Sec Status (like 0.5, 0.6) and higher still require Standings. But making it completly available is a bit over the top in my opinion. I mean you get shot by the faction if you have bad standings but you get nothing when you got good standings? Many ppl just grinded up Standings to Anchor their own pos in highsec.
How about making cloning available for everyone? That would make sense. But eh ccp is taking from those who invested some time to grind up standings just to take them away.
Well done...
Yes, very well done CCP for removing a mechanical requirement to grind. Please extend to other aspects like jump clones.
Grinding is bad, OK? It is bad for new players and it is bad for player retention. The fact that you had to do it back in the mists of time is not a good reason to keep bad gameplay. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1021
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 23:51:00 -
[34] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Benny Ohu wrote: yeah, everyone knows venezuela has been using the metric system for ninety-nine years. jeez, read a book, victoria
I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not sure you do either. Yeah, Venezuela was quite an early adopter weren't they? Well over 99 years ago.
I think we're left with Libya and US still using Imperial now. Or has Libya changed too? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1021
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 00:54:00 -
[35] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:UK is still imperial no matter what the EU say...except for science stuff then it's metric...confusing as hell for us when we were in school :D
Hehe, I love that 'except for science stuff'. Goodness knows what we'd end up creating by genetic engineering in Imperial! Probably the Amarr.
Metric is inevitable especially now that the SI units are being redefined according to physical constants. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1021
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 23:18:00 -
[36] - Quote
Caval Marten wrote:Not sure if it's been mentioned before but lowsec can be much more dangerous than null. I hope CCP takes this into account when balancing out the benefits of industry in the various security spaces. This bears repeating. I am guessing that lowsec rates will sit between highsec and nullsec. I am not sure that this is an accurate reflection of risk vs reward.
Unfortunately, there seems to be very little thought given to lowsec by either CCP or the CSM, although this will hopefully change in CSM9. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1021
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 01:36:00 -
[37] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:LOWSEC will always be a non used area of EVE compared ti High/Null. RvR is not there for most people that like to keep their stuff in one piece and the others who want to blow up other players (PvP) just join one of the big 3 and they have what they want. Leaves noobs and pirates...and bored Null bears.
And highsec will ALWAYS have the best industry? And null will ALWAYS have really bad sov mechanics?
Risk vs reward should play out properly in lowsec as well. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1021
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 11:00:00 -
[38] - Quote
Time for the next dev blog. This is pointless without the figures. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1023
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 08:49:00 -
[39] - Quote
Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.
Looking forward to the figures dev blog. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1023
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 09:45:00 -
[40] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Zappity wrote:Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.
Looking forward to the figures dev blog. As you mention it... since CONCORD is not able to provide direct chat access in W-space, how is the SCC or any other NPC corp (assuming that the fees for jobs are paid to these NPC entities) supposed to collect the fees from W-space POS? Of course, it's just a game and logic only goes so far; but how could the SCC reach W-space to collect fees when it's mighty mother company CONCORD cannot access W-space? I don't really care to be honest. Just a balancing cost.
I'd love to see J-space bonused for T3 and booster production and lowsec for subcaps and T2 modules (or whatever). Some differentiation would be nice apart from cost alone. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1024
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 06:00:00 -
[41] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.
You are describing a situation in which everyone in highsec is highly vertically integrated. While I'd like to believe that this is just your experience coloring your view on the rest of the game, well, frankly, it's probably the norm, at least if all the varied, sundry anecdotes I've read are true. It's sad, really -- vertical integration is extremely inefficient in this game. We in the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal avoid it whenever possible. If these changes encourage people to stop needlessly vertically integrating and focus on their niches, the economy will improve considerably, and everyone so inclined will realize a significant increase in wealth. It is true. There are some staggeringly inefficient workflows out there. I think they will remain until 'minerals I mine aren't free'. So never.
Or maybe people are just thick and bad at math. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1024
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 12:17:00 -
[42] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Update!
- All R.A.M. and R.Db. volume has been reduced from 4m3 to 0.04m3 to accommodate for their new required numbers.
- All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array.
- All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
- Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.
Example:
- BobTheClever installs Megathron Blueprint in Dodixie NPC station and use his corporation Starbase to research ME on it right now. Estimated delivery date is after the summer release. When he delivers the research ME job, the researched Megathorn blueprint will delivered back at the NPC station.
Does the reduction in material cost apply to Advanced arrays which currently have a penalty? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1027
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 20:39:00 -
[43] - Quote
Mynnna's latest blog has useful historical figures in it:
http://thethirdn.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/data-based-contempt/ Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
|
|