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) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5367
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:09:00 -
[931] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Xe'Cara'eos wrote:can we turn off the new interface and use the old one that we all know and love/hate? No, but we may be able to offer some counselling
Hello,
have you read my suggestion post?
I think it's a good idea and I am starting to get likes about it Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:09:00 -
[932] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Because the 1st blog was already a small novel. I don't blame them at all for wanting to do it in smaller, more detailed sections.
Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault. They've been crystal clear about what each of the upcoming blogs will cover.
For likely 90% of the people who produce the goods that everyone buys this first devblog contains a lot of changes to how we go about our production. And without any numbers attached to words like " less and more " we're left to guess if we are all going to be eating a giant sunk cost after this expansion hits. CCP knows better then to use "less and more" without inciting fear and panic, and their recent track record with "balance changes" is very hit and miss. Though the UI looks like it might reduce the click fest hopefully
That being said i do love the new faction battle ship changes, that team clearly has a vision in mind and has though everything out completely. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3348
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:10:00 -
[933] - Quote
sci0gon wrote:ccp confirmation required.
when this change goes live will the bpos that were in the middle of production at the time be relocated to any pos mods that the production was started in or will it continue to export back to its locked down status in the station?
also is there the possibility that you guys may complete all build jobs on the server to free up the bpos so that the players can have peace of mind during the update that they are safely in the station and will have to decide after that whether or not they wish to continue to build in a pos or stick to station building?
also will there be any other purpose to high standings than what is in the game currently?
The issue regarding how to migrate blueprints using starbase when the expansion hits has been noted. We'll update this thread when we have more information about this. |
|
Cornelius Maximo
Passive-Aggressive Production's Night Sky Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:20:00 -
[934] - Quote
Currently a corporation in an alliance can anchor a POS and allow alliance members to do ME and PE. The alliance member only needs to rent an office and do the research from that office.
So with this new change you will either have to do research at a station for whatever the NPC price is or move your blueprints to a POS and research/copy there.
Current POS mechanics restricts the other corporations of the alliance with the ability to put items into a corporate hangar array/ labs of the POS, but they cannot take anything out.
So will this change effectively kill the ability of an alliance to setup a POS specifically for allowing its members to do research or will POS game mechanics be changed to allow the owning corp to setup some type of check in check out system for blueprints for corporations in the alliance? |
Sunrise Aigele
Pemberley Enterprises BadWrongFun
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:22:00 -
[935] - Quote
I am almost giggling to see 6 dev blogs concerning industry. Thank you! It is almost enough to make me forget that I will have to throw out a lot of work and start over.
I am sorry you could not fit invention into the schedule. The invention interface has been steadily nibbling away at my sanity. |
Klarion Sythis
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
279
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:28:00 -
[936] - Quote
sci0gon wrote: also is there the possibility that you guys may complete all build jobs on the server to free up the bpos so that the players can have peace of mind during the update that they are safely in the station and will have to decide after that whether or not they wish to continue to build in a pos or stick to station building?
Lol are you kidding? Let me start as many Titan builds as I can first, thanks.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3853
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:30:00 -
[937] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Because they are redoing the entirety of industry and how it works and removing old legacy code etc and they STILL aren't getting rid/fixing the t2 BPO issue. That's why.
How long ago did the t2 BPO lottery end? At LEAST 5+ years ago (Source), although I've heard estimates of 7-8 years ago (source).
You might have had a case for obliterating T2 BPOs many, many years ago, where people originally obtained t2 BPO's using a fair amount of effort with a dosing of luck. However, at this point, most people that have them worked for them (by thieving, killing, or buying them). Removing them now is just wrong on many levels, primarily because you're destroying years of efforts of many players that use them as investment items, which acquired them by fair and balanced means.
Now, no one can dispute that T2 BPO's allow players to produce a t2 items more profitably compared to invention (that is, when you ignore the cost of acquiring the T2 BPO and look at a manufacturing cost on a per item basis). But most items in game are profitably produced by invention, and attacking the T2 BPO holders really won't result in you making more isk (instead, those T2 QQ'ers that "can't compete" will just realize more quickly that they are just bad at T2 Production, probably because they aren't informed).
So, before you respond, you need to go look at the facts:
In March 2012, the percentage of modules produce from invention:
93.95% of T2 Gyrostabilizers, 89.77% of 1400mm II, 87.34% of 425mm Rail II, 82.00% of Tachyon II, 74.23% of Torpedo Launcher II.
In March 2012, the percentage of ships produce from invention:
90.23% of Hulks, 67.85% of Sabres 65.01% of Wolves 22.16% of Pilgrims 6.00% of Eagles
Data Source Additional Data Source Direct Source <-- Have to search to find the relevant tweets.
Here's the point: Modules and Ammo are primarily produced through invention, so removal of those BPO's wont do anything but HURT the BPO holder. These producers wont see more profit, and the consumers wont get any items cheaper. Considering the work most BPO holders put in to acquire their BPO, this is just cruel and wrong to do!!!! Now, some specific T2 ship production is often dominated by t2 BPO holders, however these items move slowly and are typically priced BELOW the invention production cost. As such, removing these BPO's would result in HIGHER PRICES for people that want to buy these ships! How is that good???? Sure, it means people that want to produce Eagles via invention could then make a profit, but who wants to reward the idiotic fool that is trying to produce slow moving T2 Ships for profit by paying more for those ships????
I have few more points: 1.) Supply and Demand Market forcing very much sets the price point in this game. GÖª For any item with a high rate of movement, T2 BPO's produce very little of the market volume. What this means to inventors is that they are primarily competing against other inventors. T2 BPO producers enjoy healthy profit margins without messing up your profits. GÖª For any item with a very low rate of movement, T2 BPO's produce the majority of the market volume. What this means to inventors is that they have a very hard time competing in the market. So what! When competition is present, it is very hard to make a profit in these highly competitive markets, even if T2 BPO holders didn't exist. The competent inventor either knows the risks going in and uses other market tools to earn their profit (convenience, etc).
2.) T2 BPO's bring value to the game. They insure low-volume goods may be produced at a reasonable price. They are rare collectibles who's value varies significantly while retaining a level of utility. They are coveted, creating a source of conflict.
3.) Many serious producers secure moongoo and minerals at below market value. If you are competing against them, you're just going to lose, as they're material costs are far lower than yours. Should this be fixed too? I think not, I like getting cheaper items.
4.) This is the duplicate of an old post I made. Many things have changed in the last two years (new decrytpors, ship balance changes have altered supply/demand curves, the moongoo bottleneck has changed), but the message is the same. You can make plenty of isk via invention, and you can compete in most MFG markets. If you are having trouble making ends meet, it is because of your incompetence, not because of some mythical T2 BPO holder! There is no reason to remove T2 BPO's from the game at this stage, as they don't offer you any advantages you can't utilize yourself (because you too can buy a T2 BPO).
|
Master Flakattack
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:35:00 -
[938] - Quote
I am getting mixed messages here: will POS slots be affected by "congestion" pricing? It would be totally ridiculous to do so, considering the already high cost of operating a POS (which is likely to go up once people can drop a POS anywhere with no standings required) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3853
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:37:00 -
[939] - Quote
CCP:
One thing you didn't address in the changes to R.A.M. is what you will do with existing R.A.M. modules in the game. I assume you will simply multiply all the current R.A.M. mods in game by 100 to keep the balance, but would like confirmation.
I bring this up, because I have 1000's of R.A.M. items that I use for production, which represents 100m isk worth of materials. If you are NOT going to alter the number of R.A.M. I have to be equivalent to the new R.A.M. consumption/production rates, then I can simply plan to use up all the R.A.M. I have no problems. I simply would like clarification so I can plan appropriately. |
Centurax
Eve Engineering Authority Eve Engineering
47
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:38:00 -
[940] - Quote
This may have been covered but would still be good to know...
So how is this new slot-less build system going to effect Starbases does this mean we will need less labs and factories set up on them OR does the current slot system still apply?
Also would this be a good time to streamline the types of build and lab structures on Starbases (keep the capital ones I have no issues with keeping those separate)?
Is it possible to give those of us who grinded standings for our corps to get some sort of bonus to running Starbases now that they will be able to be deployed anywhere?
Otherwise I really like the way this is going. |
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
377
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:38:00 -
[941] - Quote
Master Flakattack wrote:I am getting mixed messages here: will POS slots be affected by "congestion" pricing? It would be totally ridiculous to do so, considering the already high cost of operating a POS (which is likely to go up once people can drop a POS anywhere with no standings required) YES. POS slots will be affected by congestion pricing.
We do not know how much it will be and we do not know if there will be other changes that also relate to the economies of running a POS, so there is no need for panic at this time. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3853
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:38:00 -
[942] - Quote
Master Flakattack wrote:I am getting mixed messages here: will POS slots be affected by "congestion" pricing? It would be totally ridiculous to do so, considering the already high cost of operating a POS (which is likely to go up once people can drop a POS anywhere with no standings required)
Yes, POS's will be affected by congestion pricing.
There will no longer be "lines" at the Assembly Arrays, and "congestion" pricing is the mechanism CCP is using to limit your production. How this will help/hurt you has yet to be released, and we need to wait a week or three for the relevant dev blog.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3853
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:42:00 -
[943] - Quote
Centurax wrote:This may have been covered but would still be good to know...
So how is this new slot-less build system going to effect Starbases does this mean we will need less labs and factories set up on them OR does the current slot system still apply?
We don't know... and we must wait for the relevant dev blog.
Centurax wrote:Also would this be a good time to streamline the types of build and lab structures on Starbases (keep the capital ones I have no issues with keeping those separate)?
Perhaps. I bet CCP has some of this in the pipes already.
Centurax wrote: Is it possible to give those of us who grinded standings for our corps to get some sort of bonus to running Starbases now that they will be able to be deployed anywhere?
I support giving standings more meaning. I'd suggest that Personal, Corp, and Alliance standings reduce costs of using Station services (like they do with broker fees), and perhaps benefits in other ways.
|
Valterra Craven
185
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:43:00 -
[944] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Stuff
T2 BPOs should have been removed from the game from the get go. If they are doing such massive changes to industry and STILL leave them in the game, that is wrong. They are legacy items of an age gone by. The production facts are irrelevant. The same investment arguements were made back then as well and they make little difference today. People invest billions into play styles across all of Eve and when **** hits the fan and major changes happen everyone that wanted the change is always HTFU, Well that same argument applies here. T2 BPOs should be removed from the game and investors should HTFU. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6972
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:45:00 -
[945] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Stuff
T2 BPOs should have been removed from the game from the get go. If they are doing such massive changes to industry and STILL leave them in the game, that is wrong. They are legacy items of an age gone by. The production facts are irrelevant. The same investment arguements were made back then as well and they make little difference today. People invest billions into play styles across all of Eve and when **** hits the fan and major changes happen everyone that wanted the change is always HTFU, Well that same argument applies here. T2 BPOs should be removed from the game and investors should HTFU. who cares take your unrelated whining to some other thread Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1468
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:46:00 -
[946] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle It's here because CCP said they would look at reducing the copy times. Right now many industrialists don't have a problem with them because of the high copy time and production volume restrictions balance with invention. If you start changing that without a positive balancing change to invention, then it looks like you are favoring T2 BPO owners over invention. Then of course whenever something like this happens, the same t2 bpo comments over the last 7 years get pulled out and thrown back and forth.
Basically, by saying that they would make a change they stirred up the hornets nest and acknowledged they were open to making changes to T2 BPOs, something unthinkable for many of us. For something that's pissed off a number of people in the last 7 years, in a thread with a dev comment on it, why would you expect anything other than a heated debate about it regardless of numbers?
We all have our opinions of T2 BPOs and given the lack of focus on industry until now, this is probably the best and probably only time to get your opinion in front of someone that could do something about it. Might as well put in your two cents now. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Mila Joevovich
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:47:00 -
[947] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Xe'Cara'eos wrote:can we turn off the new interface and use the old one that we all know and love/hate? No, but we may be able to offer some counselling
Welcome to EVE....where if you don't like it, not only will we tell you kiss our collective arses....we'll even throw in a smarmy developer comment at no charge
Seriously. this does nothing but reinforce the perception that you aren't listening and could not care less about any input from the player base...of course, that assumes you had any concern in the first place.
You know what they say about ssumptions....ooopps, guess I better put on my donkey ears. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
228
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:48:00 -
[948] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: CCP:
One thing you didn't address in the changes to R.A.M. is what you will do with existing R.A.M. modules in the game. I assume you will simply multiply all the current R.A.M. mods in game by 100 to keep the balance, but would like confirmation.
I bring this up, because I have 1000's of R.A.M. items that I use for production, which represents 100m isk worth of materials. If you are NOT going to alter the number of R.A.M. I have to be equivalent to the new R.A.M. consumption/production rates, then I can simply plan to use up all the R.A.M. I have no problems. I simply would like clarification so I can plan appropriately.
They will be multiplied everywhere: Hangars, cargoholds, market, contracts,... My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6972
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:51:00 -
[949] - Quote
Mila Joevovich wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Xe'Cara'eos wrote:can we turn off the new interface and use the old one that we all know and love/hate? No, but we may be able to offer some counselling Welcome to EVE....where if you don't like it, not only will we tell you kiss our collective arses....we'll even throw in a smarmy developer comment at no charge Seriously. this does nothing but reinforce the perception that you aren't listening and could not care less about any input from the player base...of course, that assumes you had any concern in the first place. You know what they say about ssumptions....ooopps, guess I better put on my donkey ears. anyone who liked the old interface needs the counseling for re-integration into society Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3853
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:52:00 -
[950] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: CCP:
One thing you didn't address in the changes to R.A.M. is what you will do with existing R.A.M. modules in the game. I assume you will simply multiply all the current R.A.M. mods in game by 100 to keep the balance, but would like confirmation.
I bring this up, because I have 1000's of R.A.M. items that I use for production, which represents 100m isk worth of materials. If you are NOT going to alter the number of R.A.M. I have to be equivalent to the new R.A.M. consumption/production rates, then I can simply plan to use up all the R.A.M. I have no problems. I simply would like clarification so I can plan appropriately.
They will be multiplied everywhere: Hangars, cargoholds, market, contracts,...
While this makes sense, and I'd assume that would be CCP's plan, I did not see this explicitly stated. Did I miss a dev comment proclaiming this? |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3348
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:55:00 -
[951] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:I've looked through every dev post and still not seen this answered yet.
Are the extra materials going to be considered the base materials now with wastage added on? I'm not quite sure how this is going to work with invented T2 BPCs, as some T2 ship BPCs for example will end up requiring multiple T1 ships to construct. Is this working as intended?
If so then T2 items will be requiring more materials, unless you are lucky enough to own a fully researched T2 BPO. So again, another buff for T2 BPO holders.
All extra materials are turned into regular materials, that will indeed be now affected by skills and waste. Except for Tech I ships and items, as such:
- You should never see a Paladin require 2 Apocalypses to build
- You should never see a Large shield Extender II require 0.75 Large Shield Extender I to build
|
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
377
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:55:00 -
[952] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Squelch wrote:H3llHound wrote: One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch.
Where did you see this? The only thing I see in the Devblog is: Multiply number of R.AM. and R.Db. given for each run of their respective blueprint by 100. Multiply all R.A.M. and R.Db. job requirements by 100, then further multiply that number by the old damage per run percentage.That doesn't mention existing stocks. Confirming this means existing stock including in market orders, contracts etc |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3351
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:56:00 -
[953] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array? Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details. Wait, what?! So what is my incentive to pay 300 000 000 isk a month for fuel if i still have to pay for production slots????
Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. |
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
230
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:58:00 -
[954] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: CCP:
One thing you didn't address in the changes to R.A.M. is what you will do with existing R.A.M. modules in the game. I assume you will simply multiply all the current R.A.M. mods in game by 100 to keep the balance, but would like confirmation.
I bring this up, because I have 1000's of R.A.M. items that I use for production, which represents 100m isk worth of materials. If you are NOT going to alter the number of R.A.M. I have to be equivalent to the new R.A.M. consumption/production rates, then I can simply plan to use up all the R.A.M. I have no problems. I simply would like clarification so I can plan appropriately.
They will be multiplied everywhere: Hangars, cargoholds, market, contracts,... While this makes sense, and I'd assume that would be CCP's plan, I did not see this explicitly stated. Did I miss a dev comment proclaiming this?
Link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474706#post4474706 My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Sunrise Aigele
Pemberley Enterprises BadWrongFun
26
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:58:00 -
[955] - Quote
Mila Joevovich wrote:Welcome to EVE....where if you don't like it, not only will we tell you kiss our collective arses....we'll even throw in a smarmy developer comment at no charge Seriously. this does nothing but reinforce the perception that you aren't listening and could not care less about any input from the player base...of course, that assumes you had any concern in the first place. You know what they say about ssumptions....ooopps, guess I better put on my donkey ears.
What is your input? What do you keep from the current interface? What is it about the one mockup that we have been shown that you don't like?
If you want them to care about your input, first you have to provide input! For myself, I will be happy to never see the old interface again. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5592
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:01:00 -
[956] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle It's here because CCP said they would look at reducing the copy times. Right now many industrialists don't have a problem with them because of the high copy time and production volume restrictions balance with invention. If you start changing that without a positive balancing change to invention, then it looks like you are favoring T2 BPO owners over invention. Then of course whenever something like this happens, the same t2 bpo comments over the last 7 years get pulled out and thrown back and forth. Basically, by saying that they would make a change they stirred up the hornets nest and acknowledged they were open to making changes to T2 BPOs, something unthinkable for many of us. For something that's pissed off a number of people in the last 7 years, in a thread with a dev comment on it, why would you expect anything other than a heated debate about it regardless of numbers? We all have our opinions of T2 BPOs and given the lack of focus on industry until now, this is probably the best and probably only time to get your opinion in front of someone that could do something about it. Might as well put in your two cents now. However people should still keep in mind that any changes to copy times will benefit the inventor far, far more than the T2 BPO owner. And all of these arguments have been discussed for years, and the hard evidence on the market shows they have zero substance... so lets not waste anymore time trying to prop up what amounts to using T2 BPO's as a scapegoat for poor invention skills/decisions. These assumptions have been proven false time and again, and have little to no relevance to this discussion unless CCP went completely off the deep end and reduced copy times on T2 BPO's only by a HUGE percentage, which is extremely unlikely. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3855
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:02:00 -
[957] - Quote
Sunrise Aigele wrote:Mila Joevovich wrote:Welcome to EVE....where if you don't like it, not only will we tell you kiss our collective arses....we'll even throw in a smarmy developer comment at no charge Seriously. this does nothing but reinforce the perception that you aren't listening and could not care less about any input from the player base...of course, that assumes you had any concern in the first place. You know what they say about ssumptions....ooopps, guess I better put on my donkey ears. What is your input? What do you keep from the current interface? What is it about the one mockup that we have been shown that you don't like? If you want them to care about your input, first you have to provide input! For myself, I will be happy to never see the old interface again.
It sounds like he's botting his S&I activities, and the new interface will ruin his bot.
|
Valterra Craven
186
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:02:00 -
[958] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:
who cares take your unrelated whining to some other thread
Same could be said of your comments. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
140
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:03:00 -
[959] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:I've looked through every dev post and still not seen this answered yet.
Are the extra materials going to be considered the base materials now with wastage added on? I'm not quite sure how this is going to work with invented T2 BPCs, as some T2 ship BPCs for example will end up requiring multiple T1 ships to construct. Is this working as intended?
If so then T2 items will be requiring more materials, unless you are lucky enough to own a fully researched T2 BPO. So again, another buff for T2 BPO holders. All extra materials are turned into regular materials, that will indeed be now affected by skills and waste. Except for Tech I ships and items, as such:
- You should never see a Paladin require 2 Apocalypses to build
- You should never see a Large shield Extender II require 0.75 Large Shield Extender I to build
Great, thanks for clarifying this. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5592
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:03:00 -
[960] - Quote
Mila Joevovich wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Xe'Cara'eos wrote:can we turn off the new interface and use the old one that we all know and love/hate? No, but we may be able to offer some counselling Welcome to EVE....where if you don't like it, not only will we tell you kiss our collective arses....we'll even throw in a smarmy developer comment at no charge Seriously. this does nothing but reinforce the perception that you aren't listening and could not care less about any input from the player base...of course, that assumes you had any concern in the first place. You know what they say about ssumptions....ooopps, guess I better put on my donkey ears. After that humorless post you don't need to be guilty of making assumptions to put on those donkey ears. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
|
|
|
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 |