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) |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
216
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:00:00 -
[691] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Halia Thorak wrote:I have a couple of questions and comments about the changes, but over all the look really good.
Firstly how do you intend to address invention and the to make it less clunky without totally breaking it with these changes. In the current pos system if I can't run jobs remotely from a station I need to go to a POS to run the jobs which locks down a toon to the system as the cycle times are only 1.25 hours, do you intend to streamline this?
Secondly I think that a hard cap of 14% is faaaar to low, the fee's as they stand right now are a joke compared to the cost of fueling a pos per slot. The current prices even at 500% its almost equal the cost per hour to run a job in a reasonably fit pos.
Lastly while we're changing copying times I'd like to see T2 BPO copy times remain where they are, if they become more viable then invention you will likely see that system in its current state fizzle out really really quickly. People who got lucky in the T2 BPO lottery already have piles of money, there is absolutely no need to line their pockets even more (imo they should all be done away with to make it fair but oh the rivers that would be cried if you did that). You will be able to install invention jobs remotely.
I hope you will need a skill for that?
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2602
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:02:00 -
[692] - Quote
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. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:03:00 -
[693] - Quote
Well that kinda ruins my cap building future and my current t2 career. Nobody in their right mind will have cap bpos in a pos. |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
126
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:05:00 -
[694] - Quote
Finally I will be able to reprocess my procurer stack for a profit. No longer will I need to spend years selling them off. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3451
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:05:00 -
[695] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote: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. ... and towers offline with fuel? |
Jake Centauri
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:09:00 -
[696] - Quote
So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20820
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:11:00 -
[697] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:If a tower has been out of fuel for a full week, it's 'properly abandoned'. Not really, no. Just because it's been a week doesn't mean no-one will come and defend it if you try to get rid of it. And as mentioned, what you describe will create just as many GÇ£litteringGÇ¥ POSes as we have right now.
Quote:It should be able to be taken down (or possibly stolen if this can be coded) by anyone that wants to. You already can-áJust wardec and blow it up.
Quote:Wardeccing a corp where noone has logged on in six weeks is not some exciting activity. No, but it's going to have to be the minimum amount of time required to destroy the stuff since anything shorter will only ever be abused. So again, if you want a mechanism for blowing up POSes that no-one cares about, then there are ways of doing that that could work. Bypassing wardecs or otherwise getting the spot in less than, say, 48h, isn't one of them. 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20820
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:12:00 -
[698] - Quote
Jake Centauri wrote:So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this? Not at all. It was effort that paid for itself many times over a long time ago. It's a sunk cost and you should be very very happy that you never have to pay it again. 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. |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:16:00 -
[699] - Quote
Drahcir Nasom wrote: Example, I have a 125mm Autocannon 2 BPO which in a Rapid Array I can build 745 guns per week. The maximum number of runs for a BPC from this BPO is 100, which is less than 24h production.
You do realize that I have to put in new invention jobs every 1.25 hours, given your number of 745 it would take me about 150 invention jobs to produce enough bpc's (quick match i might be off a bit) to produce that in a week on top of already having to work off of only bpc's. Lets fix one system before buffing another that's already working better then the rest.
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1464
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:18:00 -
[700] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Good thing that I'm very explicitly not doing that, then. Well, good for me at least; not so good for you since it means your ad hominem fallacy is even less valid than it might otherwise have been. You are implicitly arguing for it though. Although, it is pretty obvious. Does that make it explicit? I also have the feeling you have a high sec pos that is offline from time to time.
Not good for me? Heh, I really don't care. You, by your post count and quoting ability, clearly do. Well good for you, you pointed out that I think you are a forum troll and let some ad hominem slip (although is it a fallacy if I know I believe own opinion?).
Anywho, sleep well knowing that you won some inconsequential argument with a random guy on the internet that plays the same video game you do. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
554
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:23:00 -
[701] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jake Centauri wrote:So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this? Not at all. It was effort that paid for itself many times over a long time ago. It's a sunk cost and you should be very very happy that you never have to pay it again.
You sure are quick to trivialize... running for CSM?
He put significant investment and effort into something that CCP is now going to give away for free to people who will compete with him directly.
CCP continues to screw vets over their attempt to keep their chin above water...
CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:26:00 -
[702] - 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. |
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:30:00 -
[703] - Quote
What I'm really liking about this and other changes is the slow but steady overhaul of the POS system elements contained within these other systems. Great to hear people don't have to grind missions just to put up a tower! The sneak peek at the UI looks great too, this is going to be huge! X |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
369
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:41:00 -
[704] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense.
Nanites. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20820
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:43:00 -
[705] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:You are implicitly arguing for it though. Yes, by saying that these are great changes, I'm implicitly arguing for the status quo. Project more.
If you don't care that your arguments are easily dismissed as fallacies, then that just means you think of your arguments as worthless and irrelevant. That's not a good thing.
KIller Wabbit wrote:You sure are quick to trivialize... running for CSM?
He put significant investment and effort into something that CCP is now going to give away for free to people who will compete with him directly. He put significant investment and effort into something that he gained lots of benefit from. It is a sunk cost due to a horrible flaw. He can benefit from this improvement just as much as everyone else. 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. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort Against ALL Authorities
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:52:00 -
[706] - Quote
Too many fundamental changes all at the same time, some good some bad. It will be very difficult to figure out what is broken in the system if you change every fundamental aspect of it.
You are changing the interaction of blueprints with poses and Conquerable stations. You are adding non player controlled taxes to nullsec stations (Seriously wtf, let players control 0.0). As you currently have it written your asking people to put potentially hundreds of billions of prints into poses in order to manufacture ./ or copy them. Seems a bit unfair, especially for those involved in capital production as you have managed to add many hours of additional hauling and more risk that the sometimes narrow profit margins are worth.
We already have a huge amount of risk in the form of month (or more) long builds, why do we need to put another 100 bil of risk into the pot in the form of BPOS that we cant lock down (in poses)? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
377
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:55:00 -
[707] - Quote
There's a thread of entitlement that seems to be percolating through this forum thread, and I'd like to put it to rest before someone who isn't actually beholden to such irrational thoughts takes it as fact.
Grinding standings does not entitle you to permanent benefits. Your payment for grinding the standings once (or purchasing a standings character on the Character Bazaar) has been years and years of benefit. For some, this is nearly a decade of uninterrupted benefaction. Now, the old, clunky mechanic has been put to rest. While your benefaction is being drawn to a close, you can't simply ignore all the benefits it's given you.
Incidentally, if any of you have characters that have 9.0+ standings with Caldari Navy and are so oft-put by these changes that you're going to sell your character, contact me privately. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Sylvanium Orlenard
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:04:00 -
[708] - Quote
Has the possibility of only making the act of "copying" allow for the BPO to be in station and the copy job to be at a POS? Any other type of jobs require that the blueprint be at the location. |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:25:00 -
[709] - Quote
I am amazed that CCP would want to change the way POSes are used to research and produce while at the same time changing the way slots work in NPC stations. Wouldn't one change at a time be a little more prudent? Why not go ahead and throw in the walking in stations mod too and swing for the fences? |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:27:00 -
[710] - Quote
Querns wrote:There's a thread of entitlement that seems to be percolating through this forum thread, and I'd like to put it to rest before someone who isn't actually beholden to such irrational thoughts takes it as fact.
Grinding standings does not entitle you to permanent benefits. Your payment for grinding the standings once (or purchasing a standings character on the Character Bazaar) has been years and years of benefit. For some, this is nearly a decade of uninterrupted benefaction. Now, the old, clunky mechanic has been put to rest. While your benefaction is being drawn to a close, you can't simply ignore all the benefits it's given you.
Incidentally, if any of you have characters that have 9.0+ standings with Caldari State and are so oft-put by these changes that you're going to sell your character, contact me privately.
And all that baloney is just your opinion. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20822
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:27:00 -
[711] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:I am amazed that CCP would want to change the way POSes are used to research and produce while at the same time changing the way slots work in NPC stations. Wouldn't one change at a time be a little more prudent? Why not go ahead and throw in the walking in stations mod too and swing for the fences? Mainly because one change becomes rather pointless without the other and because many of the mechanics are used in both places so you have to do it all at once. 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. |
tiewan
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:28:00 -
[712] - Quote
Dear CCP,
Your proposal pleases me.
You may proceed. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:29:00 -
[713] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jake Centauri wrote:So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this? Not at all. It was effort that paid for itself many times over a long time ago. It's a sunk cost and you should be very very happy that you never have to pay it again. Unless you happen to be among the newer players, who have been grinding standings more recently to put up their first POS.
But, I guess those players are the "lower class" of EVE... lol. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20822
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:31:00 -
[714] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Unless you happen to be among the newer players, who have been grinding standings more recently to put up their first POS.
But, I guess those players are the "lower class" of EVE... lol. Then you still have a couple of months' head start on the land rush. 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. |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:34:00 -
[715] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mainly because one change becomes rather pointless without the other and because many of the mechanics are used in both places so you have to do it all at once.
Feel free to elaborate at any time |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:39:00 -
[716] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:gifter Penken wrote:RIGS!
Rigs and ammo, and that is pretty much it.
You nail it! It is the rat drop that is better than can be built that kills T1 manufacturing, and in turn, that kills T2 manufacturing as industrialists are forced to find something, anything, that is profitable. I don't disagree, but there are still lots of even non-T2 that are decent for manufacturing: Some non-T2 stuff that I've built for profit, because they sell to pretty much everyone: ... list deleted for brevity... I was speaking of T1 *modules* for which there are meta versions available, which make up the bulk of the T1 modules in the game. There are only a handful of modules which do not have a meta version, dropped by NPCs.
I was also speaking of items which can be built and (profitably) sold by new players, who are just getting learning how to manufacture stuff in EVE - not vet industrialists.
If you edit your list accordingly, you'll find it to be much, much shorter. |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
85
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:40:00 -
[717] - Quote
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense. Nanites.
Where does the nanite paste come from? That stuff isn't cheap you know. |
Varun Arthie
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:46:00 -
[718] - Quote
I there are no longer going to be remote industry jobs then what is going to be of the skill "supply chain management"? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1100
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:46:00 -
[719] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:Tippia wrote:Mainly because one change becomes rather pointless without the other and because many of the mechanics are used in both places so you have to do it all at once. Feel free to elaborate at any time The station slot changes are what justifies the POS changes. Without the station changes the POS changes are just unnecessarily punitive to POS owners. And without the POS changes the station slot cost scaling can be risklessly bypassed. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 03:18:00 -
[720] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Unless you happen to be among the newer players, who have been grinding standings more recently to put up their first POS.
But, I guess those players are the "lower class" of EVE... lol. Then you still have a couple of months' head start on the land rush. I don't think they look at it that way, though. More likely, they will see it as a lot of wasted game time, and possibly unsub out of irritation or frustration.
This change - and many other recent and upcoming changes (not just the industry ones) - tend to have a much greater (negative) effect on the newer players. And, every time this happens, we lose a few more players, which isn't good for the continuing health of the game.
So, is some form of reimbursement of the POS standings grind a bad idea? No - in fact, it is a good idea to help retain those younger players.
And, remember that when the learning skills went away, we *did* all get reimbursed for the SP, regardless of how much and for how long we individually benefited from having them trained up.
Everyone wins, no one loses. Best way to (re)design a feature. |
|
|
|
|
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 |