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) |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:43:00 -
[1741] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:Some proposed changes make sense, but some are not really thought out. The removal of standings for POSes is a bad idea both because it wil promote POS spamming and because it's unfair to the people who endured those long standing grinds CCP forced beforehand.
The need to phisically move BPs is also going to be a terrible change, wasting players' time and adding danger with no tangible reward. it would make sense if a phisically moved BP would provide an advantage of some kind (shorter times, for example) versus the comfort of remote action, but as it's been noted already, it's again unfair against people who trained specific skills, but even more it's farcical to introduce in New Eden, Anno Domini 23341, an activity which is outdated on old XXI century Earth. ...
Yep ....
With this change CCP is actually further discouraging player interaction ... they are instead encouraging industrialists to create SOLO research/manufacturing corps even more than before ... since you can no longer feasibly lock down or manage BPO's via hangar tab permissions in station (but must instead transport them physically to the POS where no security exists), it is too much risk to allow anyone else in corp ... SOLO will be the only way to go > working completely against "Player Engagement".
And pretty much making Faction Standings useless .... great, just great, nice to know all my effort was for nothing ... |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:57:00 -
[1742] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Sarin Gaston wrote:"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements " Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth. it was a waste of your time the correct solution is an apology and axing that atrocious mechanic forever not "well sarin gaston had to do it once so we must have everyone suffer equally"
It removes a lot of player achievement mechanics, which motivate a lot of players ..... wouldn't we want more achievements rather than less?
Seems to be making the game a lot more shallow rather than deeper and richer .... people who don't like these mechanics really wouldn't seem to be affected much anyway .... why change it? |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:23:00 -
[1743] - Quote
Querns wrote:Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this? Not really. These changes are about tilting the game in the direction it's supposed to be tilted -- you must endure risk for reward. A significant portion of the changes in Rubicon and in the new expansion are in the removal of low-to-no risk activities such as reprocessing, research, and manufacturing. That being said, if you do wish to eliminate risk, you can still utilize station-based RAM lines.
Not sure what the "reward" is supposed to be though now? .... Why would anyone anchor a POS anymore? Why would anyone grind Faction standing anymore? .... Instead just find a cheap out of the way station where you can keep your high value BPO's safe .... this change basically removes (hisec) POS's as a game element. |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:36:00 -
[1744] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Makoto Priano wrote:I hate to be that guy, but: any content for shooting-at-people stuff, or any development along the explore-new-shenanigans and make-new-implants realm?
There will be POS's everywhere and those POS's are now slightly more likely to contain BPO's. I'm pretty sure the shooting-at-people demographic is getting an indirect buff here ;)
Those POS's will no longer contain ANY high value BPO's unfortunately .... and it will be trivial to re-anchor one ... so go ahead, have at'em.
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:40:00 -
[1745] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Querns wrote:The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS. But the dev blog says "The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked". So clearly you must be wrong! ;)
Indeed ... why even defend them? Why even attack them? No one would be crazy enough to put any high value BPO's in POS's now ... |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:55:00 -
[1746] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.
30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers. Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS. No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.
That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.
I wonder what the logic is behind this.
And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is:
EVE: Contraction
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:22:00 -
[1747] - Quote
Sarin Gaston wrote:"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements " Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth.
And for how long did you benefit from this. I could understand this complaint a bit if you maybe you just go the standings but if you've had them for years now you are complaining because newer players can suddenly compete with you.
Take your profits and HTFU. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:24:00 -
[1748] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.
30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers. Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS. No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.
That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.
I wonder what the logic is behind this. And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is: EVE: Contraction
Actually it is:
Eve: Butt Hurt Older Players
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:25:00 -
[1749] - Quote
Oh and another thing for the whiney players in this thread.
Cost does not determine price.
You just just dropped back about 200 years in terms of economics if you think this. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:27:00 -
[1750] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:
And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is:
EVE: Contraction
Simply brilliant...
hmm, "Building Better Worlds"... did CCP get bought by Wylan-Yutoni? (Alien franchise reference, latter half of thread title is used verbatim in sequel Aliens I'm surprised it took me this long to catch it)
I would suggest to the Devs that this being early in the life cycle of expansion design, now would be a good time to reassess key aspects. It is evident post expansion game play is going to change and most likely not in direction planned.
Just my 2isk
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:34:00 -
[1751] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:Takara Mora wrote:
And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is:
EVE: Contraction
Simply brilliant... hmm, "Building Better Worlds"... did CCP get bought by Wylan-Yutoni? (Alien franchise reference, latter half of thread title is used verbatim in sequel Aliens I'm surprised it took me this long to catch it) I would suggest to the Devs that this being early in the life cycle of expansion design, now would be a good time to reassess key aspects. It is evident post expansion game play is going to change and most likely not in direction planned. Just my 2isk
It is Weyland-Yutani...
sheeesh.
|
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
32
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:39:00 -
[1752] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Anders Madeveda wrote:... Impatiently waiting for more details before I begin my 4 account sellof of Pos's, BPO's, assets and toons. Taking a hard look at ESO and others.
I fail to understand what's so attractive at ESO... you don't even have a market there... GW2 is far more superior.
Its on my list to look at! Heard some great things about it too. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1024
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 06:00:00 -
[1753] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.
You are describing a situation in which everyone in highsec is highly vertically integrated. While I'd like to believe that this is just your experience coloring your view on the rest of the game, well, frankly, it's probably the norm, at least if all the varied, sundry anecdotes I've read are true. It's sad, really -- vertical integration is extremely inefficient in this game. We in the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal avoid it whenever possible. If these changes encourage people to stop needlessly vertically integrating and focus on their niches, the economy will improve considerably, and everyone so inclined will realize a significant increase in wealth. It is true. There are some staggeringly inefficient workflows out there. I think they will remain until 'minerals I mine aren't free'. So never.
Or maybe people are just thick and bad at math. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Lorna Sicling
Helix Pulse Brothers of Tangra
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 07:23:00 -
[1754] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:penifSMASH wrote:How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs Grarr Dexx wrote:Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0? The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs. Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs.
Seriously?
Manufacturing, inventing, researching and reverse engineering in either a POS or null sec Outpost have significant additional costs over sitting in a hi-sec station (fuel etc for POS and logistics costs for outposts). So somehow, a concord or some other body is now going to oversee everything we do and tax us on it? What about repairs, clone costs and docking fees? Will these all be taxed on outposts too, as currently thy can be set to zero? Oh wait, that would affect PvP and so would be a bad change.
I'm trying to see how industry can work in null sec right now, and am part way through some blogs about it, but to me, these changes are likely to make it even less competitive to manufacture in null sec. Also, you're suggesting that you're removing the time bonus from POS and outpost slots and replacing them with other bonuses? Do you have any idea how this might affect the profitability and output of industry operations? Have you considered this?
Question - did the last CSM actually have anybody that understood industry in Eve beyond what they found in the wreck of the industrial ship they just destroyed? Industrialist - currently renting in null sec.
Writer of the blog "A Scientist's Life in Eve" - proud member of the Eve Blog Pack |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 08:34:00 -
[1755] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Ummmm...no. Dev's said explicitly that null sec faces much smaller taxes than high sec. The same structure is applied, but at a much smaller rate.
we already paid a tax, 80 bill just to have a nice station |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
389
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 08:44:00 -
[1756] - Quote
There seem to be 3 groups in this discussion, hisec players who at least have a strong expectation that they will lose out in summer, the null folks who are fighting for this change and will most likely benefit from it, and those in the middle who will wait and see what the changes bring then adapt to them and/or work around them.
In terms of CSM meetings it seems that null sec regions are well represented, who represented hisec and losec interests with regards to these changes?. Surely those people should now be explaining the rationale behind these changes to address the lack of information we have at the moment. Obviously we need to see what the rest of the blogs bring, but allowing such rampant speculation without some kind of balancing input is only bad. |
Kaius Fero
37
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 09:42:00 -
[1757] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Ummmm...no. Dev's said explicitly that null sec faces much smaller taxes than high sec. The same structure is applied, but at a much smaller rate.
we already paid a tax, 80 bill just to have a nice station Goons are so damn good at extracting tears :| Because right now I cry like a baby thinking about how much you guys had to suffer out in the middle of nowhere ... that's just so cruel and unfair :(
/hug
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:There seem to be 3 groups in this discussion, hisec players who at least have a strong expectation that they will lose out in summer, the null folks who are fighting for this change and will most likely benefit from it, and those in the middle who will wait and see what the changes bring then adapt to them and/or work around them.
In terms of CSM meetings it seems that null sec regions are well represented, who represented hisec and losec interests with regards to these changes?. Surely those people should now be explaining the rationale behind these changes to address the lack of information we have at the moment. Obviously we need to see what the rest of the blogs bring, but allowing such rampant speculation without some kind of balancing input is only bad. Nobody represents hi sec. Mostly because more than 80-90% of hi sec citizens don't care about forums and CSM for various reasons ... most probably because the majority are casual players with limited time to play. So yeah.. they don't get involved, they don't deserve to have a voice.. that's a pretty unique philosophy in the game industry. But until people keep playing and pay a subscription, CCP can take extreme measures and keep destroying hi sec .. let's see for how long and where is the limit. |
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space BORG Alliance
52
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 10:00:00 -
[1758] - Quote
Wish they would release the missing dec blogs finally finally, so we could get an idea what else changes how things work.
Especially when it comes to "working together as a team". I heard something about a team dev blog, that one would be really important to see...
Cause as it stands right now, they ruined the "owning and using BPOs together through having them locked up" feature. As you cannot lock BPOs on a POS. Would also be horrible to have them locked there while it gets attacked. So there need to be some replacement system asap.
BPO locking was a major, but also very annoying feature (whoever had to lock/unlock hundrets of them knows what i am talking about), when it came to doing research, invention and production together. So far it was no problem to lock them at any station, even if they had no slots at all, as you could use the POS outside the station in the same system.
We either need a way to secure BPOs at a POS, more stations with production/research capability, or increased numbers of bureaus on stations that offer those services. Cause of the following reason:
All the people that used "suboptimal" stations so far cause they had their POS, are now forced to look for stations that have production/research/copy/invention slots. And i bet there are not enough of those out there for all of them.
They removed the bottleneck of available slots, but created a new bottleneck of a lack of available bureaus for corporations, that suddenly need them, as their "we can use the POS even on suboptimal stations" thing is busted. They moved out of the way, went through lots of effort and maintenance costs, to "be undisturbed and make room for others" - and now they get forced to return back to those crowded stations.
I really see a big upcomming problem in available bureaus on such stations after the summer patch - we need more bureau slots at those stations, or more stations that offer those kind of services. Caus i bet there are many corporations out there, that used POS as main production/research/invention points, with BPOs locked at stations that had no services at all. I know that we have been one of those corps, and i bet we are not the only one out there. This change forces us to move, to look for a station that offers those services to us, so we can keep using our BPO collection in the same fashin as so far.
So unless they have some really neat and new nice things up their sleeves for the team dev blog, the coopertive invention and production of Eve will take a strong hit. Especially when it comes to BPO sharing, without them being "stealable". |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2772
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:14:00 -
[1759] - Quote
Hexatron Ormand wrote:Wish they would release the missing dec blogs finally finally, so we could get an idea what else changes how things work.
Especially when it comes to "working together as a team". I heard something about a team dev blog, that one would be really important to see...
Cause as it stands right now, they ruined the "owning and using BPOs together through having them locked up" feature. As you cannot lock BPOs on a POS. Would also be horrible to have them locked there while it gets attacked. So there need to be some replacement system asap.
BPO locking was a major, but also very annoying feature (whoever had to lock/unlock hundrets of them knows what i am talking about), when it came to doing research, invention and production together. So far it was no problem to lock them at any station, even if they had no slots at all, as you could use the POS outside the station in the same system.
We either need a way to secure BPOs at a POS, more stations with production/research capability, or increased numbers of bureaus on stations that offer those services. Cause of the following reason:
All the people that used "suboptimal" stations so far cause they had their POS, are now forced to look for stations that have production/research/copy/invention slots. And i bet there are not enough of those out there for all of them.
They removed the bottleneck of available slots, but created a new bottleneck of a lack of available bureaus for corporations, that suddenly need them, as their "we can use the POS even on suboptimal stations" thing is busted. They moved out of the way, went through lots of effort and maintenance costs, to "be undisturbed and make room for others" - and now they get forced to return back to those crowded stations.
I really see a big upcomming problem in available bureaus on such stations after the summer patch - we need more bureau slots at those stations, or more stations that offer those kind of services. Caus i bet there are many corporations out there, that used POS as main production/research/invention points, with BPOs locked at stations that had no services at all. I know that we have been one of those corps, and i bet we are not the only one out there. This change forces us to move, to look for a station that offers those services to us, so we can keep using our BPO collection in the same fashin as so far.
So unless they have some really neat and new nice things up their sleeves for the team dev blog, the coopertive invention and production of Eve will take a strong hit. Especially when it comes to BPO sharing, without them being "stealable".
All part of the plan devised by the cartels. They were well aware of the copy/ME/PE station bottlenecks you just described when they implemented these changes. Anyone with half a brain can see that there will be immense competition to put POS's up in the relatively few high sec systems that offer copy / research slots, where BPO's can be locked down still. That will result in massive running costs in those particular systems, but is still far better than the alternative of allowing all your BPO's to vanish with a few clicks by a thief at a POS.
But there will be another alternative, already alluded to by one of the chief architects of these changes. The goons stated explicitly they "can now implement plans they made years ago", and "increase density" in sov null sec.
So bottom line, there will be a massive PR push now by goons and pl stating: "Hey, we really do like industrialists. Are you having huge problems keeping your BPO's secure? We have a solution. Come join our happy rental collective, and we will provide you with stations where you can lock down your BPO's and put up POS's in our sov turf, which is far safer than high sec anyway. You will find that our rental fees are very reasonable, compared to the risk and cost you are exposed to in high sec. And those rates are especially reasonable when you factor in the 20% bonus we provide you to refining efficiency, and the huge discount in taxes over NPC stations. Truly, we are so much better to deal with that the war dec griefers, corporate theft potential, and NPC rates that you now face in high sec." Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Nlex
Domini Canium
33
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:26:00 -
[1760] - Quote
This thing seems to have been forgotten in heated arguments, so I want to remind people about it. To legally anchor POS in sov space you need to have high standings with sov holder. NPC empires are sov holders. Why does this requirements goes missing for them? If CCP is so concerned about "legally" part, make players able to put up POSes anywhere even with requirements not met, but have them become free targets after a certain time, linked to system's security status. Or have them being shot down by Empire Navy/CONCORD. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2772
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:22:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Nlex wrote:This thing seems to have been forgotten in heated arguments, so I want to remind people about it. To legally anchor POS in sov space you need to have high standings with sov holder. NPC empires are sov holders. Why does this requirements goes missing for them? If CCP is so concerned about "legally" part, make players able to put up POSes anywhere even with requirements not met, but have them become free targets after a certain time, linked to system's security status. Or have them being shot down by Empire Navy/CONCORD.
The designers of this change have it all neatly sewn up with Ruicon's blanket statement of "The Empires are losing their grasp". They can use that line to justify any nerf to high sec they like. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14217
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:30:00 -
[1762] - Quote
CCP represents high sec. they have an interest in keeping the game appealing to newbs new accounts. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:42:00 -
[1763] - Quote
[quote=CCP YtterbiumletGÇÖs just say youGÇÖll be able to get all the information you need from a single window, without excessive mouse clicks[/quote] I remember hearing this before....oh yeah, the very well thought-out and perfectly-implemented Unified Inventory that had to be instantly changed to allow more than ONE WINDOW for most use-case scenarios.
Nothing could possibly go wrong with the same idea this time... |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3115
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:01:00 -
[1764] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:All part of the plan devised by the cartels. They were well aware of the copy/ME/PE station bottlenecks you just described when they implemented these changes. Anyone with half a brain can see that there will be immense competition to put POS's up in the relatively few high sec systems that offer copy / research slots, where BPO's can be locked down still. That will result in massive running costs in those particular systems, but is still far better than the alternative of allowing all your BPO's to vanish with a few clicks by a thief at a POS.
But there will be another alternative, already alluded to by one of the chief architects of these changes. The goons stated explicitly they "can now implement plans they made years ago", and "increase density" in sov null sec.
So bottom line, there will be a massive PR push now by goons and pl stating: "Hey, we really do like industrialists. Are you having huge problems keeping your BPO's secure? We have a solution. Come join our happy rental collective, and we will provide you with stations where you can lock down your BPO's and put up POS's in our sov turf, which is far safer than high sec anyway. You will find that our rental fees are very reasonable, compared to the risk and cost you are exposed to in high sec. And those rates are especially reasonable when you factor in the 20% bonus we provide you to refining efficiency, and the huge discount in taxes over NPC stations. Truly, we are so much better to deal with that the war dec griefers, corporate theft potential, and NPC rates that you now face in high sec."
Just as a note:
There's no particular requirement to have a POS in a system with copy slots. For the vast majority of production the value of a copy is relatively low. So transporting them to the system you have your POS in, is a minimal risk.
Now, Offices are another matter. You may have competition for those. However, as they have a capless increment on the monthly cost, this could become very interesting indeed. Just look at Jita, where people are spending a billion a month (last I looked) for a 4-4 CNAP office. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
389
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:21:00 -
[1765] - Quote
Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these? |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
642
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:45:00 -
[1766] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: but we must revolt against something... i brought a pitchfork
There is a Monty Python reference in there somewhere, I can feel it.
If a manufacturer feels the cost of production in a station is too great and they do not wish to relocate far enoguh away to reduce costs to their liking, they always have the option of erecting a POS and building from there, so long as they are in a corporation, which they can do entirely on their own with no one else. Anchor whichever or however many modules suit your operation.
I hear lots of new moons will be opening up this summer.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:58:00 -
[1767] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these?
Until recently nullsec outposts had very limited slot capability and were highly specialized. amarr was the manufacturing station, minmatar the refinery, caldari the lab, and gallente was focused on offices. Recent changes have seen improvements in these areas and I suspect slots in these stations will become unlimited, but each station will only get bonuses for what it's best at. Ir. Amarr getting build bonuses, etc.
As to the use of a pos, even large control towers are very easy to knock down in nullsec. This can quickly overshadow the fuel bonus as a risk for the few industrialists that are out there.
Lorna Sicling wrote: What about repairs, clone costs and docking fees? Will these all be taxed on outposts too, as currently thy can be set to zero? Oh wait, that would affect PvP and so would be a bad change.
Repairs and docking fees can be set to 0, and often are. Clone costs on the other hand are static and do not change, the only difference is that cloning services are available in all sov null conquerable stations and outposts, as opposed to a few in NPC nullsec or empire space. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
642
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:04:00 -
[1768] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these?
They do. My corp ran several research POSes. We also did invention, T2 production, and ice refining. All from POSes because only 1 limited-use station per system, and some mongloid from "The Before Times" thought it was cute to put an Amarr Manufacturing station in a system with 20 belts, one of which was ice.
WTB destructible stations.
Personally, I think the scaling costs for POSes should be waived, and the current slot numbers kept. They provide a nice fixed monthly expense alternative to scaling costs, but at a fixed limit to the number of jobs that can be run. Any system is also limited to the number of available moons.
How will this new system interact with CSAAs? Can someone put 10 titans in build for only a modest increase in cost? CCP really needs to be on the ball with this change and make sure no fringe cases slip through the cracks.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:21:00 -
[1769] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:How will this new system interact with CSAAs? Can someone put 10 titans in build for only a modest increase in cost?
14% of titan value *cough* modest increase *cough*
But yeah, comments like this make me wonder, whether CCP really puts in the effort to properly analyze all the possible use and exploitation cases...
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
416
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:22:00 -
[1770] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these? POSes don't somehow lend their slots to outposts. You have to use their slots the same as anyone else does. POS COULD be used to increase the availability of these slots, but then you have to work out of a POS, with all the attendant hauling and irritation. Why do this when you can just waddle down to highsec, go to a system 1-2 jumps from Jita, and manufacture your little heart out without the possibility of congestion?
1-2 jumps is not an exaggeration, by the way. When I do highsec manufacturing, and the amount I do is definitely very small, I can always find free build slots close to Jita. I don't even bother to scout slots. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
|
|
|
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 |