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) |
Don Aubaris
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:17:00 -
[751] - Quote
While there are a few good things in the Blog, this is hardly a better world.
* POS's all over high-sec is good. But the standing should stay. There is only one thing worse then a bad change, and that is a change that disrespects the effort a player made to get somewhere. This doesn't mean it should stay as is. It should be made alot stricter even. If takes x standing to set up a POS in a system with sec-status x then it should stay above x-3 or so or your POS stops working. Living in High-sec should have its cost too.
* Unlimited slots in NPC-stations, even with a cost, is silly and goes in the wrong direction. Once again you show a complete lack of vision. With POCO's in highs-sec you pushed players into something that should never happend. Now that you have the chance to push players into something good, you don't do it.
Players should get 1 slot of every kind in a NPC-station. Just to try it out. They should get 1 (or 2 ) slots of every kind in low-sec (to push people a little bit in that direction). And all the rest should be done in POS's. POS's should have slots that can be rented out to the general public (with a cost, related to the standing of the public ofcourse, and the possibility to block below a certain level) or contracted to a specific player/corps/alliance. Not that this means you should have access to the POS. There should be an (indestructable) POCO-like office outside the shields. A player puts this stuff in...and get this stuff out later. Without the POS owner being able to mess with it. Then you get player-interaction and a good NPC-nerf. This introduces risk for the clients (not the owners since they can safely do all the stuff within the shields) and give pirates a new target. With the POS -defenses jumping in the defense of its customers depending on their status.
A corps should only be able to put 1 POS up in high-sec. This to ensure there is enough room for everyone. (and yes..of course they will setup dummy corps). A Non-active POS should be removable after 1 month of inactivity (without a war-dec) and activity must be atleast 1 month before the counter is reset. (otherwise they'll just throw in 1 fuel-block every month)
This would make POS's a lot more attractive in high-sec. That requires another defense-mechanism or the small corps have no chance. A POS must be indestructable in high-sec. If you want a POS in a certain system that is full, you'll just have to offer the owner a price that he will accept. Trade is the motor of Highsec. Not violence.
That doesn't mean POS's should be safe all the time. You cannot conquer them. But you can rob them one the shields are down. Pirates can attack a POS without a war-dec. A POS should have it defenses (just as they do have now). And Concord will intervene eventually. But the delay is a mix of POS-Owner and Pirate influence with CONCORD. A Pos-owner can have a contract with concord to intervene after x hours. With the price going up the smaller x is. A pirate-group can bribe concord to add a delay to that. So a Pirate must estimate the value of the POS-contents, evaluate the defenses, guess the concord-response time, .... Can they rob it before their time runs out? And will they make a profit?
So if a small corps takes a break for 14 days, it can hire CONCORD to have a faster reaction time. When the corps is active, the defenses can be lead by the players themselves.
I think this will limit the violence against POS's but still make it possible. But only the stupid and high networth ones will be at risk.
But it's already mid-april...bit late to publish a dev blog. These things should be done atleast 6 months ahead. |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:17:00 -
[752] - Quote
Removing standings requirement from hisec poses removes one of the few (and weak) incentives to set up industry in lowsec.
Would it be possible to consider some sec status related bonus to manufacturing and research (and related activies) to improve this aspect?
|
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:21:00 -
[753] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Aliventi] Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention.
That's the current plan, yes.
This would suck. T2 BPO's should go the way of the dinosaur. New inventors already have a hard enough time competing with T2 BPOs ME/PE ratings as well as overall costs applied to final manufacture of said T2 items. IMHO the 2 systems are incompatible and the game should have one or the other and not both. |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
296
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:28:00 -
[754] - Quote
Crosspost: In reference to this interface picture Possible SISI config
This post mainly addresses the choice of icons:
I like a lot of it, I doubt if a dev reads this gd complaint but I do agree with the icons OP. I've doen a lot of industry and the icons are not intuitive as icons should be, they NEED to have rollovers at the least. Same goes for materials. Everything else in game is text or numeric data, moving over to graphics is an extra mental task. I could learn the icons, I could speed up the conversion with time, but they are not intuitive. Like many Microsoft Icons are:)
Icon design requires designers willing to go to a deeper layer of psyche, these icons are cognitive and not instinctual. To get through the cognizant layer certain mental defenses on the designers side must be slipped thru, discarded, broken or replaced. The evidence that the designer has broken through the consciousness is that less detail rather than more conveys more meaning. They are symbols that have been buried in our heads for longer periods of time and our relative to our culture.
For instance the crystal Icon on the top left does indeed resonate as a symbol for minerals. From a geek culture, I grew crystals at the age of 8 to 10 and almost instinctively I know that crystals usually precipitate from minerals rather than elements. My brain needs no more processing time to make the new association than simple a assignment. I already have the refined minerals in my mind as a sort of set, list or dictionary. minerals =["trit", "pyer", "iso", ...]; crystal_outline = mineral. Fast and direct mental access.
Now I like that transistor, It too I studied in elementary school while growing crystals. It kind of says I'm a crystal too but from elements instead. Its got a direct association too but this time the association is the beginning of a hierarchical collection I would assign the name of crystallized metals or electronic semiconductors and what this actually does is reveal another weakness. The composites pictured are neither electronic or crystallized metallic elements.
The Icons great!!! I think it should be used for what we call moon materials, with the exceptions of the gasses they sound elemental, metallic and potentially capable of semiconductor or superconductor traits.
As the icon currently sits my brain has to go through a series of variable assignments which is cognitive in nature rather than instinctual as icons in a perfect world should be. My brain has to say, transistor image = moon metal: moon metal = intermediate: intermediate = composite. While its carrying this chain I'm also pulling along node indexes for a hierarchical tree of simple and complex reactions. At this point my brain blows a gasket, the transistor has added at least 3 or 4 mental associations to the already more complex t2 thought chain And I don't even need to know this chain without a moon.
Which brings me, since I don't want to not offer a solution when exposing a problem. I would suggest a:
Crescent Moon with 4 beams. The crescent moon is immediately recognizable at a primal level as being a moon. 4 beams signifies its a composite that took Four moon materials to produce. The beams also are a quick association to the glow around the composites icons.
And what is that icon for planetary commodities? It looks like a hedge clipper. Am I supposed to associate hedge clipper with hedges and hedges with vegetation and vegetation with planets and planets with planetary interaction and planetary interaction with planetary commodities before I come to the (Inescapable??? :)) conclusion that hedge clippers = PI stuff?
We have to go back, more primal, more instinctive. Eve's roots are mythology, Greek, Norse, Celtic and probably more along occult lines. A suggestion for planets is a dot representing the sun surrounded by several circles symbolizing orbits with dots along those orbits as planets. By exaggerating the size of the planet orb in comparison to the sun orb its possible that this might say planet rather than solar system. Another symbol, closer to the hedge-clipper but symbolic of Earth more-so than "planets" Is a usually Green circle as a wreathe of leaves or vines and inside that circle a tree branching out to top and bottom and into the "leaves/vine"
I too hope someone takes us back to our mythological roots and symbols instead of Modern Microsoft icon dysfunctions. Eve's history should carry into its future. I'm a PC guy but Apple had Icons right. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5197
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:43:00 -
[755] - Quote
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!
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Dormio
Shocky Industries Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:56:00 -
[756] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Slappy Andven][quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Xaniff] We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. That would mean that office price on lab stations will skyrocket. One of the main reasons for POS in hisec is availability of labs for copy. Removing slots you will remove that reason, will be the efficency enough reason to keep the POS ?
Confront your enemies Gentleman can walk but never run ! |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:59:00 -
[757] - 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. |
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
27
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:59:00 -
[758] - Quote
Now anyone can enjoy the simplicity and easy of use found in the POS interface, regardless of standings.
That aside, glad to see extra materials go away. long overdue. My indy alt looks forward to these other dev blogs. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20832
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:15:00 -
[759] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec? Yes, with some frequency as I go out and scout potential new locations. It's actually quite easy to find abandoned spots and the only quibble is whether or not you want a high-quality station in the same system or not.
Quote: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. This is already the case. If you don't defend them properly, they get blown up in short order by some wardeccer who wants the spot. That is why I reject outright any kind of suggestion that only amounts to GǣI want it fasterGǥ or GǣI don't want to put the effort inGǥ, which isGǪ ohGǪ pretty much all of them. The wardecs are provably already enough to do the job and laziness or impatience is not a sufficient reason to provide a secondary method.
Right now, if a POS is actually abandoned, the effort required to take it down and replace it is exactly zero. Start it up before you make dinner; by the time the dishes are done, so is the POS.
Destination SkillQueue wrote:It forces a pointless grind on the players for no benefit to any relevant party. It all makes sense, if the parties are actively defending it, since it gives them a chance to protect their assets and creates an opportunity for a fight between the attacker and the defender. An abandoned POS is an admission by neglect, that they have no interest in defending that asset and therefore the attacker is just forced to waste money and time on a grind, that doesn't make the game better, the attacker hates to do and the defender doesn't care about. 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. 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. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:24:00 -
[760] - 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. |
|
Oxide Ammar
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:25:00 -
[761] - Quote
if the cost of putting BPO in POS lab for ME/PE/Copy research is more than the 14% tax they applying to stations, I don't see any benefit at all doing this in POS. Losing isk and risking BPOs is not worth it.They need to make it lucrative enough which result bigger profit margin if you researched or manufactured items in POS.
PS. For the love of god remove they huge list of arrays to manufacture ships, ones for T1 and ones for T2 and multiply all this by the sizes of the ships we have !!! |
H3llHound
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
22
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:36:00 -
[762] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:On T2 BPOs, please don't reduce copy times here without a real balancing effect for invention. The status quo is ok but changing copy times would make it worse. Inventors would benefit far more than T2 BPO owners from reduced copy times.
How exactly would Inventors benefit from reduced ->T2 BPO<- copy times?
T1 BPOs I understand but not T2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20832
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:37:00 -
[763] - Quote
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). 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. |
Pubbie Spy
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:03:00 -
[764] - Quote
Don Aubaris wrote:While there are a few good things in the Blog, this is hardly a better world.
Literally everything in your post is a horrible idea.
Quote:* POS's all over high-sec is good. But the standing should stay. There is only one thing worse then a bad change, and that is a change that disrespects the effort a player made to get somewhere. This doesn't mean it should stay as is. It should be made alot stricter even. If takes x standing to set up a POS in a system with sec-status x then it should stay above x-3 or so or your POS stops working. Living in High-sec should have its cost too.
* God forbid industry become more accessible. Oh no, my standings grind is being disrespected, I am being oppressed! Think of the people offering faction standing boost services! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=8574
Quote:* Unlimited slots in NPC-stations, even with a cost, is silly and goes in the wrong direction. Once again you show a complete lack of vision. With POCO's in highs-sec you pushed players into something that should never happend. Now that you have the chance to push players into something good, you don't do it.
I don't even understand what problem you are trying (unsuccessfully) to describe.
Quote:Players should get 1 slot of every kind in a NPC-station. Just to try it out. They should get 1 (or 2 ) slots of every kind in low-sec (to push people a little bit in that direction). And all the rest should be done in POS's. POS's should have slots that can be rented out to the general public (with a cost, related to the standing of the public ofcourse, and the possibility to block below a certain level) or contracted to a specific player/corps/alliance. Not that this means you should have access to the POS. There should be an (indestructable) POCO-like office outside the shields. A player puts this stuff in...and get this stuff out later. Without the POS owner being able to mess with it. Then you get player-interaction and a good NPC-nerf. This introduces risk for the clients (not the owners since they can safely do all the stuff within the shields) and give pirates a new target. With the POS -defenses jumping in the defense of its customers depending on their status.
Yes, I get it. You really love poses. Everyone must love poses. Everyone must love the most horrible user interface in EVE. Everyone must also spend even more effort on doing the mindlessly boring task of freightering stuff around.
Quote:A corps should only be able to put 1 POS up in high-sec. This to ensure there is enough room for everyone. (and yes..of course they will setup dummy corps). A Non-active POS should be removable after 1 month of inactivity (without a war-dec) and activity must be atleast 1 month before the counter is reset. (otherwise they'll just throw in 1 fuel-block every month)
This would make POS's a lot more attractive in high-sec. That requires another defense-mechanism or the small corps have no chance. A POS must be indestructable in high-sec. If you want a POS in a certain system that is full, you'll just have to offer the owner a price that he will accept. Trade is the motor of Highsec. Not violence.
That doesn't mean POS's should be safe all the time. You cannot conquer them. But you can rob them one the shields are down. Pirates can attack a POS without a war-dec. A POS should have it defenses (just as they do have now). And Concord will intervene eventually. But the delay is a mix of POS-Owner and Pirate influence with CONCORD and the number of attackers. A Pos-owner can have a contract with concord to intervene after x hours. With the price going up the smaller x is. A pirate-group can bribe concord to add a delay to that. So a Pirate must estimate the value of the POS-contents, evaluate the defenses, guess the concord-response time, .... Can they rob it before their time runs out? And will they make a profit?
Ok, so you want highsec to become a WoW like themepark. I will use our renter ISK towards creating alt corps, hoover up all those indestructible highsec poses, and rent out slots at extortionate prices. Then I'll roll up in 256 siege bombers and bash any non goon pos in 20 minutes. More power to the blob, the tears must flow. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
223
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:05:00 -
[765] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Aliventi wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes.
That's a plan? Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow.
Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs.
Unless there is a substantial ISK cost for the process of copying T2 BPOs to make them less profitable than investing actual gameplay effort, skills and ISK to invent an item, this is a horrible idea. The only reason why I and many others were indifferent about T2 BPOs even existing in the game several years after the way to obtain them was discontinued was that inventors COULD compete with the owners of T2 BPOs. If this goes through that would not be possible any more.
In fact, while you're at re-hauling industry and removing legacy stuff that is several years old and don't serve the originally intended purpose - then why not consider removing T2 BPOs and compensating the owners in some way? For example, turning T2 BPOs into T2 BPCs with infinite runs. Or introducing a chance of unsuccessful copy like we have in invention.
I really hope you will look into this problem and not just go through with it like it was done when nullsec anomalies were nerfed. That one really backfired on the game and on CCP. This one will as well. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20832
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:12:00 -
[766] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:That's a plan? Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow. Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs. Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything. New players getting into T2 manufacturing will have it just as easy to make a profit as people who are currently doing it GÇö viz. very easy. They will also be helped by the improved mechanics and (hopefully) an improved UI to make their lives even easier. 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. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
385
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:14:00 -
[767] - Quote
Dormio wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Slappy Andven][quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Xaniff] We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. That would mean that office price on lab stations will skyrocket. One of the main reasons for POS in hisec is availability of labs for copy. Removing slots you will remove that reason, will be the efficency enough reason to keep the POS ? Over the short haul, yes. Over the long haul? Probably not.
It will depend on how safe high-sec POSes continue to be. But since the CCP devs seem hell-bent driven to force high-sec players into PVP situations, this will probably drive most of them to use the NPC stations, even with lower efficiency, when POSes come under frequent attack by PVP corps/alliances.
CCP has repeatedly tried, and failed, to entice high-sec players to take more risks and engage in PVP. But, the highest priority of high-sec players has always been "safety" - this is why they stay in high-sec. No reason to expect this player behavior to change.
I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
393
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:22:00 -
[768] - Quote
Dormio wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Slappy Andven][quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Xaniff] We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. That would mean that office price on lab stations will skyrocket. One of the main reasons for POS in hisec is availability of labs for copy. Removing slots you will remove that reason, will be the efficency enough reason to keep the POS ?
This is actually a reason not to rent a corp office. If I cannot use it to store and access my BPs from there for research/invention/manufacturing in the POS, I don't need a corp office to begin with in a 1-man corp. That is a good change, I have to admit, because it potentially saves me millions in ISK. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1472
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:25:00 -
[769] - Quote
Will we be able to select several single run bpc's to run multiple invention/manufacturing jobs at once? +1 |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:27:00 -
[770] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:That's a plan? Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow. Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs. Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything. New players getting into T2 manufacturing will have it just as easy to make a profit as people who are currently doing it GÇö viz. very easy. They will also be helped by the improved mechanics and (hopefully) an improved UI to make their lives even easier.
He said nothing about T2 manufacturing he said new T2 Inventors and to point out the real fault in your statement all T2 Invention should be worthwhile to the new inventor and even more worthwhile to the high skilled inventor. That is what would fall in line with CCPs new approach of having players skill base being highly specialized. |
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
223
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:29:00 -
[771] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:That's a plan? Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow. Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs. Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything.
You can tell that to a player who didn't have contacts with a person who monopolized Nighthawk and Invu field production for years (among many other things). The fact is I know those who own pretty impressive collections of T2 BPOs and I know how they operate.
Yes, it would make easier for a MANUFACTURER to get into T2 production, but at a cost of driving INVENTORS out of the business and out of the game.
T2 BPOs can not be obtained any more - the way to obtain them was removed from the game many years ago. The game now functions on a different mechanics - invention. And all industrial players apart from a lucky (or wealthy) few are playing the game by these currently active rules and mechanics. The investment is several months of gameplay, skill training, planning, organisational efforts, forming corporations and ultimately paying for a subscription in order to master a field like Invention that relies on game mechanics that have been active for several years just to be kicked out of the market by a handful of players that are still milking the mechanics that was discontinued all those years in the past and are not part of the current mechanics whatsoever. That is certainly not a wise business decision.
My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1473
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:44:00 -
[772] - Quote
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. +1 |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1150
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:47:00 -
[773] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:47:00 -
[774] - 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 -
[775] - 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20834
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:52:00 -
[776] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:He said nothing about T2 manufacturing he said new T2 Inventors GǪexcept that the quoted post was talking about new manufacturers, not just inventors. As it happens, new players will still have an easy time no matter which route they take.
Quote:and to point out the real fault in your statement all T2 Invention should be worthwhile GǪwhich doesn't particularly point out any fault with my statement.
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:You can tell that to a player who didn't have contacts with a person who (practically) monopolized Nighthawk and Invu field production for years (among many other things). The fact is I know those who own pretty impressive collections of T2 BPOs and I know how they operate. And the way they operate is that for any item worth inventing, they have no control over the market. They have no ability to drive anyone out of the market for those items GÇö old or new GÇö because they lack the production capacity to do so. Nighthawks is one of those low-volume items that are hardly even worth it with a BPO; invulns is one of those high-volume items where inventors have absolutely no problems making a profit.
Quote:T2 BPOs can not be obtained any more Sure they can. Just buy one. It's a pretty lousy business decision, though, since they're not all that good for large-scale production. 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
20834
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:54:00 -
[777] - Quote
Zappity wrote: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. The point has nothing to do with being touchable or not GÇö it has to do with intent. Again, just because you're not using it does not mean it's GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥.
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. 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. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:57:00 -
[778] - Quote
Hmmmconspiracy theory moment...many people are saying they will simply not use POS anymore...less people using them makes it easier to replace the entire POS mechanics. Could this be a means to an end? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
393
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:04:00 -
[779] - 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.
And blocking people's access to moons is no intent? |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:05:00 -
[780] - 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. |
|
|
|
|
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 |