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) |
Miktek
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:28:00 -
[841] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:Makoto Priano wrote:Actually, QUESTION!
So. If you're removing the standing requirement for anchoring POSes because it doesn't add gameplay value, will you also be removing the standing requirement for installing jumpclones?
That said, if you're removing standings requirements and standings now only really matter for taxes/agent access, will you be adding new standing-gated rewards to LP stores or something like that? Pretty please? They should probably just remove standings all together. There really is no value for having high standings anymore except for access to high level missions.
perhaps they should remove that limitation as well and just have "missions", no level 1 to 5 anymore :P |
Eurynome Mangeiri
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:30:00 -
[842] - Quote
ST Mahan wrote:Xe'Cara'eos wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array? Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details. so my question - will different types of jobs installed at POS (say, 1x supercap, 1x capital, 3 subcaps, and a shedload of ammo) affect each other's cost scaling? should this be waiting for the appropriate blog too? Who gets the ISK for the job installation; the corp or is it a sink? Sounds like it is an ISK sink, which doesn't make sense for a player owned structure. i think in station it is a sink, in a pos it goes to corp (or maybe 50/50 corp / sink for POS) |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:31:00 -
[843] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Add a new account with 3 manufacturers... There: production capacity increased by 33 slots. GǪwhich won't be able to produce any faster than the BPO already could. That Invuln II blueprint will go from taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and, what, 500 hours(?) to make a 100-run copy to taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and taking 200 hours to make a 100-run copy GÇö not enough to dominate any markets, but enough to make it worth-while to use the copies in a production POS. Sure, you could make 10 10-run copies instead and run those 10 copies in parallel. It'll still take 200 hours to do so and while the end product comes out quicker during the production step, you are then idling while the next batch of copies is being researched. The number of runs you can squeeze out of the BPO per time period won't really change. Quote:Currently, the cap is set hard to the amount of T2 BPOs that you own... well, with these changes GǪthe cap will be pretty much exactly the same. You really don't see how printing blueprints faster than you can use them is an opportunity for expanding you capacity to manufacture if you employ more slots/alts?
And no, you will not have any idle time.
Let's take an example where copying is 10% faster than manufacturing - 9 hours to make a 10 run BPC and 10 hours to produce 10 items from said BPC. Here's a quick time flow: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1404/runs.jpg
You have 10 blueprint copiers? A new manufacturing alt can be spawned at the end of pictured cycle.
That's an example of just 10% difference. With, for example, 20% it's even faster to employ new alts. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20848
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:31:00 -
[844] - Quote
Eurynome Mangeiri wrote:i think in station it is a sink, in a pos it goes to corp (or maybe 50/50 corp / sink for POS) The congestion charge is a sink everywhere, per a previous dev response. 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. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
388
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:32:00 -
[845] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array? Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.
Wait, what?! So what is my incentive to pay 300 000 000 isk a month for fuel if i still have to pay for production slots???? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:35:00 -
[846] - Quote
Some of the changes look really nice, a big reduction in the click-fest that (T2) manufacturing currently means is always a good thing. After having only gone through the first half dozen pages of this thread i still wonder, how the hassle of always having the right materials/BPs in the right array will be addressed?
For example, when having 20+ labs/arrays on the pos, the ability to remotely install jobs i for naught, since for every few jobs one would have to be physically present in order to move all the crap from one array into the next one.
Would dropping individual storage space on pos modules in favor of a centralized solution be an option for that expansion? Meaning that the storage space of e.g. the corp hangar array gets multiplied by 10 or something like that (math guys to the front) and all "consuming" arrays/labs on the same pos are linked to it and take the materials they need from that central storage. Or maybe keep individual storage and make it possible to link individual consumers to certain storage modules.
And WTB option to stack freaking BPCs... |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:35:00 -
[847] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aeonidis wrote:seriously if that were the case there would be dozens up on the market for every module and ship in the game at any given time. but there aren't, why? In many cases, because people are bad at maths and don't understand opportunity costs. You don't have to look around much to find BPOs for sale, nor do you have to do much maths to notice that it'll take you half a decade or more to earn them backGǪ and yet people buy them.
That would be a scam not an opportunity cost. If its so easy to sell them for the "cash" opportunity cost how many do you have up for sale atm?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20848
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:36:00 -
[848] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:You really don't see how printing blueprints faster than you can use them is an opportunity for expanding you capacity to manufacture if you employ more slots/alts? Not in a way that in any way affects how little control they have over the market, no. You are still limited by what the BPO can produce, and that limit will still be much the same as it always was.
Quote:And no, you will not have any idle time. You do if you try to speed up the manufacturing by running the copies in parallel.
Quote:You have 10 blueprint copiers? A new manufacturing alt can be spawned at the end of pictured cycle. GǪif you have 10 blueprints. Each blueprint still doesn't produce much more than it did before. 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
368
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:36:00 -
[849] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:Tippia wrote:Aeonidis wrote:your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade. Eh, no. The opportunity cost doesn't go away GÇö they still have the opportunity to just turn that BPO into liquid cash. Moreover, many current BPO holders were not around for (or did not win) the lottery and had to buy them later. seriously if that were the case there would be dozens up on the market for every module and ship in the game at any given time. but there aren't, why? because its more profitable to copy and manufacture from them instead. None of this doesn't change the fact that T2Bpo's are an outdated and broken mechanic that pulls a vast sum of ISK into the hands of a very few players at the expense of the entire marketplace. There isn't really much point in arguing over what an opportunity cost is or isn't. It's factual. The word means what the word means. You pretending it doesn't has no effect on that. Words don't work that way.
If the T2 BPOs have a value on the open market, which they provably do, then there is an opportunity cost associated with owning them.
Manufacturing from a T2 BPO yields a return on that investment. But that return is small, often less than 1% per month.
It is a trivial task to find a dozen easy ways to generate more than 1% per month on a large amount of isk.
The reason why most people hold T2 BPOs is because their value has tended to increase over time, so they are speculating on future prices. That is the part of the T2 BPO that many cherish and that is exactly the part of the T2 BPO that has no negative effect on invention.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20849
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:37:00 -
[850] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Wait, what?! So what is my incentive to pay 300 000 000 isk a month for fuel if i still have to pay for production slots???? Because they're yours and you'll pay lower congestion charges for them than if you join the public pool at the nearby station. 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
3071
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:40:00 -
[851] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:Tippia wrote:Aeonidis wrote:your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade. Eh, no. The opportunity cost doesn't go away GÇö they still have the opportunity to just turn that BPO into liquid cash. Moreover, many current BPO holders were not around for (or did not win) the lottery and had to buy them later. seriously if that were the case there would be dozens up on the market for every module and ship in the game at any given time. but there aren't, why? because its more profitable to copy and manufacture from them instead. None of this doesn't change the fact that T2Bpo's are an outdated and broken mechanic that pulls a vast sum of ISK into the hands of a very few players at the expense of the entire marketplace.
T2 BPOs currently sell for around 5-10 years of production profit.
Sure, it's capex without depreciation (possibly even increasing in value), but it's not, currently, a particularly good investment. It's just a low effort one.
The reduction of copy times could be a concern for T2 invention, if the T2 BPO copy times are reduced too far. Right now, you can't produce from a T2 BPO in parallel by using copies. So the volume is gated by the number of blueprints.
The scale of the reduction is the important part. As we don't know this, there's not much of a coherent argument, one way or another. Just time for raising of concerns. Not argument over those concerns.
There's a set demand for T2 goods (yes, it varies a bit. I'm simplifying, but not over-simplifying. Reduction in cost would stimulate demand, but this doesn't mean it would then push costs back up to a viable level). If the T2 BPO supply volume is increased significantly (say, each copy only takes a second. Exaggerated for effect), then invention could be squeezed to the point it's not worth it. (See current low volume markets for what happens when T2 BPOs can fulfil the supply.)
Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
368
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:41:00 -
[852] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:Tippia wrote:Aeonidis wrote:seriously if that were the case there would be dozens up on the market for every module and ship in the game at any given time. but there aren't, why? In many cases, because people are bad at maths and don't understand opportunity costs. You don't have to look around much to find BPOs for sale, nor do you have to do much maths to notice that it'll take you half a decade or more to earn them backGǪ and yet people buy them. That would be a scam not an opportunity cost. If its so easy to sell them for the "cash" opportunity cost how many do you have up for sale atm? 1. Open the contracts system. 2. Set Item Category to Blueprint Original. 3. Set "Sort Pages By" to "Price (Highest First)". 4. Buy whichever one you want. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
388
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:41:00 -
[853] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:Tippia wrote:Aeonidis wrote:your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade. Eh, no. The opportunity cost doesn't go away GÇö they still have the opportunity to just turn that BPO into liquid cash. Moreover, many current BPO holders were not around for (or did not win) the lottery and had to buy them later. seriously if that were the case there would be dozens up on the market for every module and ship in the game at any given time. but there aren't, why? because its more profitable to copy and manufacture from them instead. None of this doesn't change the fact that T2Bpo's are an outdated and broken mechanic that pulls a vast sum of ISK into the hands of a very few players at the expense of the entire marketplace.
Its not more profitable to copy and manufacture by yourself. Either you copy for sale or produce from original.
Copy time as it is currently for t2 bpo is waaay longer than production, so in time it takes you to make enough copies to produce with all yohr slot capabilities you would produ e more one slot at a time Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20849
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:43:00 -
[854] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed. Yup. This has by far a higher problem potential than a simple status-quo-maintaining adjustment to BPO copying speeds. 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. |
Oberine Noriepa
1486
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:44:00 -
[855] - Quote
That UI mock-up is nice! I think the cost scaling is a great idea. An industry update has been needed! Really looking forward to this summer. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:49:00 -
[856] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:None of this doesn't change the fact that T2Bpo's are an outdated and broken mechanic that pulls a vast sum of ISK into the hands of a very few players at the expense of the entire marketplace. It's not really a fact, though, nor is it any different from how any other manufacturing works.
That's just a troll, to be honest.
For any other manufacturing activity you can obtain needed materials and tools by playing the game and not using the market whatsoever. T2 BPOs were belonging to that group a long time ago until that feature has been discontinued. You can not under any circumstances obtain T2 BPOs like any other necessary material or tool for any other type of production.
The ONLY exception are NPC SEEDED T1 blueprints that you must buy from the market at a fixed price. They are ALWAYS available to ANYONE who is willing to buy them in an UNLIMITED quantity.
You want T2 blueprints to be the same as any other industry item in the game - then either make them obtainable through gameplay like they were before, which current owners are exploiting (not an "exploit - exploit" in terms of game rule breaking btw) or seed them by NPCs on the market like T1 BPOs are. Until then, yes - they are much different from any other manufacturing activity in the game.
And yes - players that have obtained them by using a discontinued game mechanics HAVE an unfair advantage over all other players simply because of the fact that they are profiting from a game mechanic that is not available to players any more. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
139
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:50:00 -
[857] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed. Exactly this. I just mentioned this a page back and it went unanswered and unnoticed.
This is one of the biggest change as it will have a dramatic affect on the material cost of many invention items. The only reason I can think people wouldn't be discussing this is because the ones who have noticed are busy buying up the T2 items which are going to be massively affected by this. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20850
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:54:00 -
[858] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:And yes - players that have obtained them by using a discontinued game mechanics HAVE an unfair advantage over all other players simply because of the fact that they are profiting from a game mechanic that is not available to players any more. Not really, no. It's just an advantage GÇö one that almost anyone can acquire if they're a bit daft. It is far from an unfair one. 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
368
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:55:00 -
[859] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:And yes - players that have obtained them by using a discontinued game mechanics HAVE an unfair advantage over all other players simply because of the fact that they are profiting from a game mechanic that is not available to players any more. The mechanic I used to get my T2 BPOs is available to everyone, right now. Even to someone like you.
I even gave you clear, step by step instructions.
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:57:00 -
[860] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:And yes - players that have obtained them by using a discontinued game mechanics HAVE an unfair advantage over all other players simply because of the fact that they are profiting from a game mechanic that is not available to players any more. Not really, no. It's just an advantage GÇö one that almost anyone can acquire if they're a bit daft. It is far from an unfair one.
Until there is a possibility to obtain T2 BPOs like there was before, the unfair advantage will always be there. You can play with words and semantics, but this fact remains. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
|
Gynax Gallenor
Conquering Darkness
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:03:00 -
[861] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed.
I think you got your arithmetic slightly wrong there Steve.
ME -4 gives 50% waste, not 100%, so it doesn't double the materials required.
To use your specific requirement, you would then need 1.5 of the T1 item, which gets rounded to 1 doesn't it? (I have it in my head that decimals are always rounded down, but I could be wrong about that)
Best of luck with the CSM vote BTW.
Fly Reckless, cos flying safe is no damn fun!
http://flyreckless.com/newsite/ |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:04:00 -
[862] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed. Exactly this. I just mentioned this a page back and it went unanswered and unnoticed. This is one of the biggest change as it will have a dramatic affect on the material cost of many invention items. The only reason I can think people wouldn't be discussing this is because the ones who have noticed are busy buying up the T2 items which are going to be massively affected by this. ME -4 which is the standard T2 BPC you get from an invention job will be unviable in the new system for many T2 items as it will double the extra material requirement. In the end it would balance out if supply from T2 BPOs remains constant. Although it means that T2 items in general will increase in price. And T2 BPO holders will be able to make more profit by manufacturing from them. This could entice more T2 BPO holders to start using them for manufacturing though instead of just as an investment.
Although this should have been addressed the second CCP decided to push extra materials up I would not put it past them to have not considered it. If they intend to do that they might as well just remove invention from the game as it will no longer be viable gameplay. btw I noticed your previous post and liked it as well. From what I can tell this game has gotten so convoluted over the years that, now, when the Devs are set to push a major expansion such as this they release the blogs first so that we as players can help them cover all the little things they missed. This was a good catch on your part, bravo. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20851
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:05:00 -
[863] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Until there is a possibility to obtain T2 BPOs like there was before, the unfair advantage will always be there. You can play with words and semantics, but this fact remains. The fact is that it's not unfair. It is available to anyone who wants to (stupidly) throw their money at such a low-ROI investment.
Moreover, any advantage BPOs offer can be countered by the many advantages invention offer. Like Akita T said, it offers an advantage, but that does not mean that the advantage is insurmountable or unfair. The fact is that among the many advantages available to industrialists, it's a pretty bad one to have on the scale of things. 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
3072
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:10:00 -
[864] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Until there is a possibility to obtain T2 BPOs like there was before, the unfair advantage will always be there. You can play with words and semantics, but this fact remains. The fact is that it's not unfair. It is available to anyone who wants to (stupidly) throw their money at such a low-ROI investment. Moreover, any advantage BPOs offer can be countered by the many advantages invention offer. Like Akita T said, it offers an advantage, but that does not mean that the advantage is insurmountable or unfair or in any way out of whack with what other advantages you can buy yourself. The fact is that among the many advantages available to industrialists, it's a pretty bad one to have on the scale of things.
The only thing I'd add here is 'currently low-ROI'
Depending the actual number changes, this may change. Not worth getting worked up about yet, however
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
140
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:11:00 -
[865] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Gynax Gallenor wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed. I think you got your arithmetic slightly wrong there Steve. ME -4 gives 50% waste, not 100%, so it doesn't double the materials required. To use your specific requirement, you would then need 1.5 of the T1 item, which gets rounded to 1 doesn't it? (I have it in my head that decimals are always rounded down, but I could be wrong about that) Best of luck with the CSM vote BTW. bah. yes. 50%. But iirc, that rounds up. (I'm seeing other things rounding it up. It's possible this is an artefact of my calculator. I'll have to double check it in game. Expanded CargoHold II's are showing 2 Nocx in their base materials at ME -4) Extra materials and ME could be very significant with T2. I'm pretty sure that it is rounded up at 0.5. Unless CCP are using funny maths. At least that's what I have been using in all my spreadsheets and it hasn't failed me yet. |
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
27
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:11:00 -
[866] - Quote
One great advantage that T2 BPO have is that producing with them is much, much less click-intensive than invention. I think it adds to their value. With invention/manufacturing clickfest reduced plus batch job submission in summer expansion, T2 BPOs might lose some of their value. Just a wild guess of course... |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:12:00 -
[867] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Until there is a possibility to obtain T2 BPOs like there was before, the unfair advantage will always be there. You can play with words and semantics, but this fact remains. The fact is that it's not unfair. It is available to anyone who wants to (stupidly) throw their money at such a low-ROI investment. Moreover, any advantage BPOs offer can be countered by the many advantages invention offer. Like Akita T said, it offers an advantage, but that does not mean that the advantage is insurmountable or unfair or in any way out of whack with what other advantages you can buy yourself. The fact is that among the many advantages available to industrialists, it's a pretty bad one to have on the scale of things.
Have a look at the post above your. I have only covered one aspect of making inventions unprofitable. There are other things mentioned in this dev blog that will further affect the viability of invention.
And all those issues and game breaking changes for many regular industrial characters are happening because of a legacy support of a discontinued part of the gameplay that haven't been available to players for more than five years. That's truly an "excellent" way of balancing the game. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5356
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:12:00 -
[868] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: 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.
Sadly you are quite right and these players will be the first to flock over SC once it's out. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tarikla
Projet Aurora
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:14:00 -
[869] - Quote
Tarikla wrote:I have ONE major grip about all this : Quote: Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course).
This change is killing the whole point of faction standings. The system was already not really great, for standings that takes weeks or even months of farming missions, all you had was the privilege of anchoring POS in High-Sec, and the 1 time BPC with very high standings. There is an whole economy revolving around standing boosts and selling of corps with high standings. And you are throwing that out of the window completly. It wasn't hard to find someone with high standings to get you a corp or a boost, with a fee of course. But now, you can anchor POS all the way up to 1.0 with no effort and an almost blank alt in a corp. What's the point of faction standings then ? Only some BPC, and the usual "if you go below -5 navy chase you" & "can't go higher than l1 mish if below -2" ? Both those things are easily avoided with the Diplomacy skill if you want. So basically, doing storyline missions, who requires an lenghty amount of time to get, only means that you gonna get a small goodie at the end. by the time you reach a BPC, you will certainly got *100 or even more it's value in regular missions. I don't see any reasons now to do Storyline missions. Factions Standings are utterly useless right now, just for the sake of banalizing POS Usage. The already poor PVE side of Eve got dumbed down a little more.
If possible, i would like a stance from CCP for this. Is it ok with you to kill this part of the game ? I will accept the decision, i'm just bringing it to the table. |
Miktek
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:15:00 -
[870] - Quote
At the moment I use my own BPOs that I copy in my corps POS, I drag the BPOs to a corp hanger in a station, set the copy jobs and collect from the POS. will this still be a valid method of copying or will I now have to physically take the BPOs to the POS in order to start the copy jobs? |
|
|
|
|
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 |