Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20799
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:47:00 -
[571] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Or...as the next 4 dev blogs will reveal, this is just the first step in eviscerating high sec industry and null sec industry will be given even MORE advantages that make it impossible to run either a casual high sec indy corp or a large scale dedicated industrial corp. Why would they do that, though? And if that's the goal, why would they start with a significant buff to highsec industry? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
366
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:48:00 -
[572] - Quote
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. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:50:00 -
[573] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Or...as the next 4 dev blogs will reveal, this is just the first step in eviscerating high sec industry and null sec industry will be given even MORE advantages that make it impossible to run either a casual high sec indy corp or a large scale dedicated industrial corp. Why would they do that, though? And if that's the goal, why would they start with a significant buff to highsec industry? Well that's easy, because they need to do that first before they never. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
312
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:50:00 -
[574] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian.
Of all the things mentioned in this blog this is all you have to say? I thought you were running on the industry platform? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20799
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:50:00 -
[575] - Quote
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? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3054
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:50:00 -
[576] - Quote
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.
How about:
POS without charters are free to shoot?
And they continue to tick down, even if the tower is offline. Possibly at an elevated rate. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:51:00 -
[577] - Quote
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. Yeah, I kind of like that.
If you let the lights go out, it is considered abandoned unless or until you turn them back on.
Removing shields (which require power) would not go amiss either. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3054
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:51:00 -
[578] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian. Of all the things mentioned in this blog this is all you have to say? I thought you were running on the industry platform?
You missed my first post.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474425#post4474425
I've just spent the last 5 hours stuck doing a deployment at work. I'm just settling down to read it now. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
366
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:53:00 -
[579] - 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? It gives the pos haver warning and lets them online the tower. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:53:00 -
[580] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Or...as the next 4 dev blogs will reveal, this is just the first step in eviscerating high sec industry and null sec industry will be given even MORE advantages that make it impossible to run either a casual high sec indy corp or a large scale dedicated industrial corp.
I am not known to be a strenuous (sov) null sec supremacy "because it's Good" supporter. But give CCP some slack please.
The potential nerf to Supercaps Online(tm) is sublime and hi sec was a TERRIBLE mechanic to begin with, seeing it slowly phased out imo is a good idea, as long as there are new mechanics to allow the individuals to still afford playing this game.
Think about this: in the vituperated WoW, you are statistically LESS safe against ganking than in EvE's hi sec.
EvE is marketed as cold, harsh universe, if CCP makes it really so, they are just delivering what they have written on the tin. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:53:00 -
[581] - 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? i think the wardec solution works great vs an active corp.. however vs abandoned POS's that are out of fuel I do not thing a simpler (and less expensive) option would not go amiss. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
312
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:53:00 -
[582] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian. Of all the things mentioned in this blog this is all you have to say? I thought you were running on the industry platform? You missed my first post. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474425#post4474425I've just spent the last 5 hours stuck doing a deployment at work. I'm just settling down to read it now.
My apologies, I assumed you were back from work and replying already |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:54:00 -
[583] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:In case people are interested, that's around 13400 new moons added to the pool of highsec anchorable moons (currently around 33000) Hello, Steve, who I will vote for CSM. I would not really make too many calculations over spare moons or similar, EvE has this excellent feature called (almost) "free market" that settles down these things. And ISK shall still be ridicolously easy to make to pay for added costs. Heh. Just thinking it'll take a wee while to fill up.
Now translate it like a good trader would do: any transition times equal to trends, and trends mean dynamism, creativiy and PROFIT! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
154
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:56:00 -
[584] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Adellle Nadair 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. This is the worst single idea I have ever seen from a dev. DO NOT DO THIS CHANGE!!!!!!!!!! We already risk a large amount of isk in just having the labs/datacores/decryptors and all of the copies needed out at a pos. Forcing us to either risk a huge amount more than that, or move the bpos to other much more populated stations that are already overpopulated (that don't have corp offices available or available for anywhere near a reasonable price) and incur a high cost that will greatly reduce production profit or negate it all together, is a horrible change. You as devs do not understand the amount of bpos required to make copies for t2 invention. And you clearly don't understand the organization and the necessity of being able to efficiently access bpos and the time commitment that industry already takes. It is incredibly shortsighted and ignorant of you to assume that it is only a slight amount of isk that we will be risking. We use and need easy access to hundreds of bpos to make the copies we need to be able to do invention. Asking us to risk multiple billions in bpos is insane. And no, I know I don't have to keep all of the bpos I am not using at the pos. However, the addition of moving around the needed bpos from the station to the pos adds an additional step and organizational nightmare to an already complicated system. Because of the nature of industry NOTHING you do with the UI and other new features will change this. This change will also create an additional hassle organizational nightmare for players who need to find or move bpos around. Industry is already complicated enough without having to deal with moving all of the bpos around. DO NOT take away our ability to organize bpos in one central station corp office so multiple characters can easily have access to them and can quickly and efficiently install jobs. DO NOT make us do more work and take more time to do industry jobs. Another severely overlooked issue that this creates: This removes the ability of safely sharing bpos by locking them down in corp hanger in a station. BPOs can't be locked down at a pos. This change will limit how and where we can play severely. It forces people who want to play together to use certain systems and certain stations, to pay for spots at those stations and it practically makes setting up a pos a waste of time and effort, because it limits its usefulness. In the culture of eve (griefers/corp thieves/all) this change removes several much needed elements of safety that allow us to enjoy playing and interacting with a larger player base. If you have decided to do this, as is suggested by other statements in this dev blog, because you haven't worked out how to deal how the slot change affects pos mods, then DO NOT make this change until you come up with a better solution. Because this is NOT the way to make this change happen. POSes are expensive, take time, effort and a good amount of isk to maintain already. Forcing us to risk a considerable amount more and in doing so increase the amount of busy work that is required for doing industry is not a good change. I personally have been playing Eve for 5 and a half years. Industry is one part of the game that I greatly enjoy doing. If this change does go through I will have to seriously consider if it is worth it to keep paying for my 4 accounts. Many of my friends who like this element of the game are already talking about leaving because of this. I sincerely hope that you will not go through with this change and that the other forthcoming industry changes are much more intelligently and thoughtfully crafted than this. If not, you will be losing a large group of your paying customers. This. I'm not planning to quit but if this change goes through you can bet your ass you will be shutting down most of the REAL industry corporations with REAL members as well as mass producers as the risk and effort will no longer be worth it.
Here we go,, if people are already claiming to unsub before reading the rest of CCP's dev blogs on this without any in depth analysis then they were never a "Real" industrist to begin with. God forbid if everything is not handed to you on a silver plater.
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
Canenald
Rubella Solaris Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:56:00 -
[585] - Quote
Lors Dornick wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Canenald wrote:Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down. Yeah, just like the creation of a GUI dumbed down computer use. Hell, now EVERONE will be able to do it... sheesh. We talk a lot about good and bad complexity within the team. A fair portion of the industry changes are pretty clear examples of removing bad complexity, while still keeping the interesting problems for players to solve. Some of the changes are also centered around cleaning up years of legacy code, freeing us up to better iterate on the feature and do more sexy looking UI Success in industry should be about knowing what to build, how, where, when, sourced from where and sold at the right place and at the right time. Edit: and for the right price. It should never be about to be able to stand or navigate a stupid UI.
I wasn't referring to the new UI, which I also like. I was referring to the changes to R.A.M. and similar components, the extra materials and the station slots. As with many features of EVE, variety, complexity and realism is what sets eve apart from generic MMOs. Take that away and manufacturing in EVE will become more like crafting in every other game.
It makes more sense for tools like R.A.M. to be gradually damaged than consumed by the process of manufacturing. If you wanted to do away with the randomness, just give them a limited number of uses rather than making them consumable materials like everything else.
Extra materials also add a nice non-generic flavour to the manufacturing process.
Removal of extra materials and semi-consumable components is justified by the fact that many less experienced players are calculating their manufacturing costs wrongly, but then you replace manufacturing slots with gradually increasing manufacturing fee. Don't you think many newbies will engage in unprofitable manufacture because they will not notice that they are being charged more than their eventual profit by manufacturing in a busy system? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:56:00 -
[586] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Come on. Post the next blog already.
CCP are employing a simple and oiled strategy well known in the marketing world: when you approach a (yearly) period of low sales (this period being one) start throwing appetizers to catch interest and glue potential buyers to you.
Posting stuff in phases is exactly an expectation raiser => fidelization. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5190
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:57:00 -
[587] - Quote
Altrue wrote:6 - POSes in high-sec without standing requirements? Cool! But we still need a way to easily remove offline POSes!
Shoot them. How much easier do you need it?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20800
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:58:00 -
[588] - Quote
Querns wrote:It gives the pos haver warning and lets them online the tower. So? Then it is obviously an actively occupied moon.
Ranger1 wrote:i think the wardec solution works great vs an active corp.. however vs abandoned POS's that are out of fuel I do not thing a simpler, shorter, (and less expensive) option would not go amiss. If it's abandoned POSes that need to go, I'd prefer something along the lines of what's discussed in this thread. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
355
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:59:00 -
[589] - 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? It's been sufficient for me, many, many times in the past.
I have never, ever, had any issue getting a moon (or multiple moons) in the system I want.
I can understand introducing a new and interesting mechanic to enrich the game, but in the absence of that I don't see a need to make it any easier than it already is to get a moon.
Add to this the vast amount of quality real estate that will be added by opening up the higher sec systems and I don't really see it as an issue worthy of additional developer time. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5584
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:00:00 -
[590] - Quote
Canenald wrote:Lors Dornick wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Canenald wrote:Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down. Yeah, just like the creation of a GUI dumbed down computer use. Hell, now EVERONE will be able to do it... sheesh. We talk a lot about good and bad complexity within the team. A fair portion of the industry changes are pretty clear examples of removing bad complexity, while still keeping the interesting problems for players to solve. Some of the changes are also centered around cleaning up years of legacy code, freeing us up to better iterate on the feature and do more sexy looking UI Success in industry should be about knowing what to build, how, where, when, sourced from where and sold at the right place and at the right time. Edit: and for the right price. It should never be about to be able to stand or navigate a stupid UI. I wasn't referring to the new UI, which I also like. I was referring to the changes to R.A.M. and similar components, the extra materials and the station slots. As with many features of EVE, variety, complexity and realism is what sets eve apart from generic MMOs. Take that away and manufacturing in EVE will become more like crafting in every other game. It makes more sense for tools like R.A.M. to be gradually damaged than consumed by the process of manufacturing. If you wanted to do away with the randomness, just give them a limited number of uses rather than making them consumable materials like everything else. Extra materials also add a nice non-generic flavour to the manufacturing process. Removal of extra materials and semi-consumable components is justified by the fact that many less experienced players are calculating their manufacturing costs wrongly, but then you replace manufacturing slots with gradually increasing manufacturing fee. Don't you think many newbies will engage in unprofitable manufacture because they will not notice that they are being charged more than their eventual profit by manufacturing in a busy system? Fair enough, but the total cost to manufacture will be clearly visible before you begin the job. So... yes, some will. But none of those paying at least slight attention to what they are doing will. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5584
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:02:00 -
[591] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:It gives the pos haver warning and lets them online the tower. So? Then it is obviously an actively occupied moon. Ranger1 wrote:i think the wardec solution works great vs an active corp.. however vs abandoned POS's that are out of fuel I do not thing a simpler, shorter, (and less expensive) option would not go amiss. If it's abandoned POSes that need to go, I'd prefer something along the lines of what's discussed in this thread. Hehe, I had missed that one. Yes, that looks far more entertaining. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:03:00 -
[592] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:gifter Penken wrote:So, while it may at first appear that increasing the supply of T2 items that can be produce via T2 BPO would increase profitability of those T2 BPOs... it is not necessarily the case. Some T2 items will still have demand that exceeds supply that can be met by T2 BPOs and those will become more profitable. Other are likely to shift from invention being the price point, to BPO being the price point, and profit on those could decline.
You need to consider the extremely limited output supplied by T2 BPO's. For example, a well researched T2 cruiser BPO can build about 1 ship a day.
I did consider both cases.
1) For some items, T2 BPO supply will now exceed demand, profitability may go down as invention is no longer the price setter. 2) For some items, T2 BPO produced items will still be insufficient to meet demand, profitability will go up for the BPO holders.
If I had to guess, I would bet the increased profits from the second case would be much larger than potential reduced profits from the first case.
The real point was an attempt to counter Tippa's comment that invention supplied quantity and T2 BPO supplied quantity are unrelated. That is not true. Total demand will be filled by the sum of T2 BPO produced and invention produced. The more produced by BPO, the less needed to be invented.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:03:00 -
[593] - Quote
Question to the devs: Will S&I missions be addressed during the upcoming release?
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3056
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:06:00 -
[594] - Quote
For a slightly more in depth reaction (bearing in mind I still need to read the other dev blogs, so all reactions are muted by 'other changes are coming)
Market Groups: Good change.
RAM: Great change. Removes a bit of pointless complexity.
Extra Materials: Going to have to see how this is implemented. For example, when a ship is a component. I know how it's handled behind the scenes (with recyclable materials reducing base materials.) Going to have to rewrite my calculator for this In addition, it means that when recycling some T2 things, you'll be able to get back some components you couldn't get before. Unless it's handled differently. tl;dr: Not a bad change. Going to have to see the exact implementation
Cost Scaling: I really need to see the blog on this, before commenting. It sounds like it could be a good change, but I'd prefer to see no upper cap on the cost.
As for T2BPO copying, this could be a real game changer, and one I'm not hugely keen on. depends on how much the cost is reduced. Maybe add some datacores to the cost for copying? Right now, their limitation comes from invention being able to massively outproduce them. Really fast copies could cripple that, which hands a major advantage to the T2 BPO owners.
The UI: oooooo, shiny.
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
492
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:08:00 -
[595] - Quote
Just a quickie:
Post 'Tiericide' and Extra materials, I don't think you have changed the Insurance payouts to reflect the new relative build costs. For Example: - A Platinum Insured Dominix still only seems to payout about 60m whereas it retails for circa 200m. - A Platinum Insured Hyperion still returns perhaps 150m and retails for roughly the same now as a Dominix.
This disparity appears to occur across all the recently balanced ship classes and really skews ship choices for PVP - surely it would make sense to rectify this while you confirm the new 'baseline' costs of ships by eliminating extra materials? Either that or I'm badly misunderstanding how insurance works now. Thanks.
Oh and that bottom screenshot looks like a horribly random placement of information. At least when it is all linear you can quickly scan across to find what you want - explosively scattering the information all over the screen for the sake of 'pretty' seems silly to me - but I guess I'll reserve my functionality comments for the UI blog.
Thanks.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20800
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:08:00 -
[596] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:The real point was an attempt to counter Tippa's comment that invention supplied quantity and T2 BPO supplied quantity are unrelated. That is not true. Total demand will be filled by the sum of T2 BPO produced and invention produced. The more produced by BPO, the less needed to be invented. That's not my comment, though. My comment was about production, which are unrelated. You're working on the assumption that supply and demand are matched 1:1; that an increase in one production method automatically means reduction in the other; and that GÇ£needGÇ¥ is measurable by either party.
The likely scenario is that inventors will keep inventing at the same speed, BPO holders will build at slightly higher speed, and that the difference is lost in the noise of regular market fluctuation. The fact that BPO holders can now produce slightly more has exactly zero impact on how much inventors choose to produce. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:10:00 -
[597] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: The UI: oooooo, shiny.
Please take to heart to push CCP to schedule an overhaul of the markets charts, including by implementing candle stick bars.
After all they did "took an hint" from my RL derived market charts in the last Fanfest so they have the data and "tech" to do it. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1096
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:11:00 -
[598] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote:Just a quickie:
Post 'Tiericide' and Extra materials, I don't think you have changed the Insurance payouts to reflect the new relative build costs. For Example: - A Platinum Insured Dominix still only seems to payout about 60m whereas it retails for circa 200m. - A Platinum Insured Hyperion still returns perhaps 150m and retails for roughly the same now as a Dominix.
This disparity appears to occur across all the recently balanced ship classes and really skews ship choices for PVP - surely it would make sense to rectify this while you confirm the new 'baseline' costs of ships by eliminating extra materials? Either that or I'm badly misunderstanding how insurance works now. Thanks.
Oh and that bottom screenshot looks like a horribly random placement of information. At least when it is all linear you can quickly scan across to find what you want - explosively scattering the information all over the screen for the sake of 'pretty' seems silly to me - but I guess I'll reserve my functionality comments for the UI blog.
Thanks. I thought insurance actually did take mineral costs into account. Maybe the extra minerals aren't factored in? If that's the case this change may rectify that. Otherwise I'm not sure.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
994
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:11:00 -
[599] - 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. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:12:00 -
[600] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:For a slightly more in depth reaction (bearing in mind I still need to read the other dev blogs, so all reactions are muted by 'other changes are coming)
CLIP
Nice summary, but you missed what I consider to be the biggest change of all. No more building or researching from BPO that is safely locked down in corp hanger in station.
The hassle that is going to create... alt corp running a high sec large tower to allow safe research and copy of 10s of billions of ISk worth of BPOs.. MAJOR dumb complexity.
They are never going to get the intended change of 10s or 100s of billions of ISk worth of BPOs being put into POS structures wjere they can be destroyed or captured as loot drop. Players are just not that stupid!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |