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) |
Sigras
Conglomo
761
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 02:06:00 -
[2101] - Quote
Saeth Thara wrote:Job Cost Scaling
I worry that larger groups will just pick a system, hire good teams and raise the price enough that others wont deem it worth going there, however this will likely be down to player trends so its hard to predict how things will go I guess. You have to remember that if you're paying the price, so are they, so if it isnt worth it for you to work there, it isnt worth it for them to work there either. The only difference is that they had to spend the ISK to move the team there, so you actually come out ahead in that scenario.
Saeth Thara wrote:Teams
I'm not entirely sure what I expected when I saw talk about teams. I had hoped for a system whereby multiple players could come together in some meaningful way to coordinate research and manufacturing, rather than a system which is basically bidding for a npc team to magically appear in system with a knowledge of industry that appears to far outstrip that of a capsuleers (admittedly at the cost of using dangerous drugs), who are usually much better at things than non capsuleers if ship piloting etc are anything to go by.
I guess some sort of PI link could have been used, maybe having people sacrifice harvesting/factory planets to produce some sort of product that would make such activities more effective. Which in turn would allow for Dust (or Legion as Dust is apparently dead) players to get involved in some useful capacity destroying or defending the installations, and also being a drive for conflict between eve pilots in a slightly deeper way the one group having more isk to throw at a team than another group.
Overall I haven't got anything id say is definitely better than the currently proposed idea for teams, but it would have been nice for it to have been something players actually did, rather that just paying off some npcs, whom I thought we were meant to be distancing ourselves from. They said that is probably going to be in a future iteration. In fact the PI thing that you suggested was exactly their idea. Whether or not that comes to fruition is ... debatable, but they did think of that. |
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space BORG Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 11:31:00 -
[2102] - Quote
As there was a question from the devs earlier, what could make POSes more viable for players. I just had an idea that may be worth something.
Let me start by comparing it to an analogy: We can set the speed of our ships. How fast they should be going. The same is true for nowadays ships, that have things like "Full throttle" or "half speed". How about adding this to the starbases, so its users have more options when it comes to burning through the fuel blocks, as sometimes you do not need "full speed ahead".
give a Starbase a few modes to operate in (using a large POS as example):
- minimum: just to keep the starbase shield up, everything else offline and unable to work, all arrays unusable, something like a standby mode, that also conusmes very few fuel blocks. Basically setting the tower to "self support only", without any CPU or power to spare.
- 1/4: only using a fourth of the fuel blocks, and getting only one fourth of the output, roughly putting a large tower to run in "small POS mode", running on 10 blocks per hour.
- 1/2: using half fuel blocks and half power, a large POS would have the same output as a medium tower at that rate, putting its consumption to 20 blocks per hour.
- 3/4: giving it a new "inbetween" power output of the medium tower and full consumption, for a large POS that would be running on 30 fuel blocks per hour.
- full: Operating at 100% with full output and full consumption, what means running on 40 fuel blocks per hour.
This would also open up the doorway for a new sort of gameplay that so many request on the forums. As every tower needs to at least run on minimum - you know risk vs reward. Currently putting an offline tower in HS has no risk attached to it at all, you need to open up a wardec. Use this super low consumtion rate as keeping up minimum operation of the tower. As it could be as low as consuming only one fuel block per hour, that should be affordable by anyone who runs a POS.
In return you could add additional gameplay for "truly offline towers". Whatever it may be. For example a truly offline tower cannot notify concord that it gets attacked, allowing free attack on it. Or... a truly offline tower has its mainframe offline, and cannot withstand hacker attacks. Or whatever else... there are so many ideas about that out there, that could be placed there.
I think this may add variety, may nullify the need to keep towers offlined (some corporations keep different sizes of towers out there, depending on what sort of demand may arise - if they can switch one tower in different modes, this need is gone).
Those modes should also be added to small and medium towers - so if someone just wanted to run an "ore compression tower", they could use a small one and set it to 1/4, running on the barest minimum just for the compression array. That may open the world of POSes to smaller corporations who were unable to afford them so far, but that may now be doable with a small POS that runs on the "one fourth" setting.
The current faction towers would need rework though, to give them a different set of "bonus" to still make them desireable. More CPU output... more power output... maybe bonus that adds additional time or other modifiers to its attached arrays. As those faction towers need to keep their "worth", but overall i feel that this basic idea would add a lot in terms of "making people want to use them", and also opening the doors for "possible offline tower gameplay" - as everyone can keep them in standby for very low costs. Nothing should be for free. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 11:39:00 -
[2103] - Quote
Sigras wrote:A few things on this: 1. a POS gives you a 45% bonus to copying which is a huge deal for inventors (though I agree, I dont see much research being done in a POS unless they have extra CPU) 2. nobody ever looses BPOs to a POS bash in high sec. You get a 24 hour notice if anyone is going to attack your tower; you can even have your phone alert you to a war dec. This gives you 24 hours to get your BPOs out of the tower and put away before you can be attacked. If you cant be asked to log in after you get a notification that someone has war decced you, maybe POS mechanics arent for you? 3. Given that only the laziest of the lazy lose BPOs in a POS I dont think that they're going to be as common as you may think
I would have to disagree with 2 & 3 in the above quote. Irregardless of the fact of lower risk of loss in high-sec and external utilities to notify a player of wars or the perception of only the lazy would lose forcing the BPO into a POS for work, specifically the R&D aspect is counter-intuitive. It seems that people forget that Eve: online is a game and real world situations take precedence over entertainment. Computers crash, internet connections go down, and many worse things can happen outside of a player's control.
Eve of course is a game of potential loss and that is acceptable in and unto itself. However for industrialists BPOs are very close to being on par with time and isk spent on SP and Standings especially for the independents and small groups where loss of BPOs would cripple their abilities to come back from large losses due to whatever reason. If something was ever introduced that could affect a player's skills or standings negatively in their absence there would be a revolt. Of course the argument can and will be made that BPOs are transferable assets, which is true, however the also convey an ability to do something and are fundamental necessity in that regard.
Granted many players get their enjoyment on the suffering of others whether the suffering player deserves it or not. Also gods forbid that anyone argues in the favor of fairness. Even though the changes as stated will affect me only on the nuisance level I do feel this part of the changes affect on gameplay is in need of being represented.
Setting aside the grief junkies position, removal of remote from station is a bad idea on many levels that I have pointed out in the past and I believe firmly. Hell, even if a small/micro corp loses multiple billions with a POS bashed and offices assets impounded due to failure to pay office rental it wouldn't garner the Rage-quit that someone would have coming back after an absence and losing key abilities and assets. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 13:51:00 -
[2104] - Quote
Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes? Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 15:19:00 -
[2105] - Quote
Seith Kali wrote:Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes?
try reading the devblog, that is where they were listed. they haven't said much other than that |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7370
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 17:01:00 -
[2106] - Quote
Seith Kali wrote:Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes? cost devblog Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 17:49:00 -
[2107] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Seith Kali wrote:Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes? cost devblog
Thanks, yeah, I guess with like a ton of devblogs, i could have been slightly more helpful.... |
Dingoo Ridgeback
Bitten By Science
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 20:34:00 -
[2108] - Quote
I'm looking forward to the industry changes but one thing keeps bugging me; I'm using POS for T2 manufacturing and that means I have to stick around to manualy move materials between various modules (like component and equipment assembly arrays). The remote job installing is no good since the more complex assembly arrays (like equipment, drone or ship) cannot take materials from component assembly array or corporate hangar (which wouldn't help anyway, because the goods from component assembly array cannot be delivered to corp hangar). The same thing happens when you run out of material in one of the modules but you still have plenty in the other - once again you have to travel to your POS just to move stuff around.
Will this be addressed in some way? I haven't realy found an answer to that but I sure hope it will. Right now I can manufacture T2 components remotely but then I still have to warp to my POS to move them to different module in the same POS. That kinda beats all the benefits of remote job management and I don't know why since all the materials are at the POS anyway. Thanks
We had to work hard to become the top of the food chain so enjoy your steak and stop babbling about some healthy vegies. |
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 20:53:00 -
[2109] - Quote
Been hoping for some kind of silo module myself. Right now literally the only way to handle scale industry is with a corporate office Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
475
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 06:43:00 -
[2110] - Quote
Dingoo Ridgeback wrote:I'm looking forward to the industry changes but one thing keeps bugging me; I'm using POS for T2 manufacturing and that means I have to stick around to manualy move materials between various modules (like component and equipment assembly arrays). The remote job installing is no good since the more complex assembly arrays (like equipment, drone or ship) cannot take materials from component assembly array or corporate hangar (which wouldn't help anyway, because the goods from component assembly array cannot be delivered to corp hangar). The same thing happens when you run out of material in one of the modules but you still have plenty in the other - once again you have to travel to your POS just to move stuff around.
Will this be addressed in some way? I haven't realy found an answer to that but I sure hope it will. Right now I can manufacture T2 components remotely but then I still have to warp to my POS to move them to different module in the same POS. That kinda beats all the benefits of remote job management and I don't know why since all the materials are at the POS anyway. Thanks
Maybe an alt sat in or near the POS would be a good comprimise for now, with the appropriate roles of course? Looks liker I have to wait until July to play with POS but I'd rather that than them be wrecked by a rushed release
|
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
219
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 22:44:00 -
[2111] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:5% material reduction.
Gah. That's a /major/ change. 5%, so basically the pinnacle of manufacturing then. Ok interesting. |
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 11:56:00 -
[2112] - Quote
Querns wrote:NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so others should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.
What makes this invalid? That is exactly how I feel. If I worked my ass off in missions getting to 7 faction standing so I could anchor in 0.7 then a change to a no standing requirement is naturally going to annoy me.
I think it's a perfectly valid reason for thinking it's a bad idea to remove the standing requirement. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3266
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 12:01:00 -
[2113] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:5% material reduction.
Gah. That's a /major/ change. 5%, so basically the pinnacle of manufacturing then. Ok interesting.
It's been changed since then. now 2% reduction. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Vexo Colari
Dark Sanctum
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 06:59:00 -
[2114] - Quote
I realize this is part of the tweaking from the other Indi changes but are the POS's ever gonna be reworked?
I mean in my opinion the entire POS system is probably the oldest part of EVE, set up is terrible, etc.
I think it needs a complete overhaul.
These ideas that were in the commonly proposed ideas area should definitely be looked at.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6342&find=unread
They are in the 4th post.
I think there were some great ideas in there that can be tweaked and will fit into this whole summer industrial expansion you guys are doing.
Hopefully you have something planned out already!
Cheers |
Sigras
Conglomo
765
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 10:04:00 -
[2115] - Quote
Logan Revelore wrote:Querns wrote:NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so others should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.
What makes this invalid? That is exactly how I feel. If I worked my ass off in missions getting to 7 faction standing so I could anchor in 0.7 then a change to a no standing requirement is naturally going to annoy me. I think it's a perfectly valid reason for thinking it's a bad idea to remove the standing requirement. By that logic nothing should ever get fixed... allow me to illustrate:
I had to suffer through the time when a TItan could remote DD a grid through a cyno. Thats right, the titan didnt have to be on grid, he didnt even have to be in the same system, he could just DD you if there was a cyno on grid with you.
Right when I get one, CCP changes it so you have to be on grid to DD someone.
Now is it better for me to complain that everyone should have to suffer the way I did? or is it better to recognize the fact that the game mechanic was beyond stupid in the first place and the game as a whole is now better off even if it hurts my character personally? |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
200
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 10:17:00 -
[2116] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Logan Revelore wrote:Querns wrote:NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so others should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.
What makes this invalid? That is exactly how I feel. If I worked my ass off in missions getting to 7 faction standing so I could anchor in 0.7 then a change to a no standing requirement is naturally going to annoy me. I think it's a perfectly valid reason for thinking it's a bad idea to remove the standing requirement. By that logic nothing should ever get fixed... allow me to illustrate: I had to suffer through the time when a TItan could remote DD a grid through a cyno. Thats right, the titan didnt have to be on grid, he didnt even have to be in the same system, he could just DD you if there was a cyno on grid with you. Right when I get one, CCP changes it so you have to be on grid to DD someone. Now is it better for me to complain that everyone should have to suffer the way I did? or is it better to recognize the fact that the game mechanic was beyond stupid in the first place and the game as a whole is now better off even if it hurts my character personally?
Hello Apples! This is my friend, Oranges. Let's discuss comparisons. Shall we?
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown |
JanSVK
Benzene Inc. The Explicit Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:57:00 -
[2117] - Quote
Hello everyone.
All jobs in POS are corporation jobs. Anyone in the corporation with the right roles can access, see, deliver, manipulate the jobs of everyone using the POS laboratory or assembly arrays. And anyone who wants to use POS for production or researge needs exactly these roles. This brings up the issue of security and corp thieves espetially in larger corporations.
Researching blueprints is a minimal risk being stolen by corp members as Blueprints can be locked and even if anyone from the corp would steal the finished output products (BPC) then the loss in isk is not that high (< 100 mil).
If I decide to use a POS to build T2 equipmen I have to trust any corp member not to steal my stuff when it is finished with little to no security system in place. Potentially bilions of isk in assets at risk when producing t2 stuff for example.
My suggestion would be to make the POS jobs owner restricted or give the ability for players to controll which characters can access deliver/cancel their jobs. While we at it same could go for the materials in the laboratories. Another solution would be if all labs could access the personal storage hangar in the POS. |
Dingoo Ridgeback
Bitten By Science
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:11:00 -
[2118] - Quote
JanSVK wrote:Another solution would be if all labs could access the personal storage hangar in the POS.
That would be nice since that would fix the security issues and the remote access issues I posted earlier. Of course the assembly array would have to be able to take materials and deliver the product from/to the hangar. We had to work hard to become the top of the food chain so enjoy your steak and stop babbling about some healthy vegies. |
Big Dallocort
The Killer Kangaroos
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:33:00 -
[2119] - Quote
So with the standing restrictions lifted for high sec pos, will you be able to put all structures like drug lab and reactors into the pos or are they still only for low sec |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:08:00 -
[2120] - Quote
I continue to hold the position that a total removal of anchoring restrictions is a bad idea. Originally I was completely against it, but after further thought have concluded that having it limited to the lowest security in high-sec (0.5) would be of benefit to both entry level POS managing corps AND established corps willing to commit to allying themselves with a particular empire faction.
All of the comparisons/analogies I've seen comparing this particular change to previous changes and examples lack common ground or parity. I can even further the argument by saying a group or individual investing in the faction of one empire runs foul of the opposing faction and their allies. Case in point this character is a Gallente aligned industrialist, and is "shoot on site" by Caldari and Amarr navies. A complete removal will lend to a noncommital approach to gameplay where only the Faction Warfare players are at risk venturing into enemy territories.
The mechanics that allow players/corps anchor a POS in high-sec also has the side affect on where those players can venture most importantly in wars between corps or alliances. Again empire navies will engage players in appropriate security level systems based on their standings hence preventing them from join battles in those systems, I would say it is a good thing because it forces even more strategy when attacking or defending space bound assets. Without the reason to gain the standings the rewards for doing standing missions become very less appealing since the cumulative gain was more important than the individual standing mission rewards.
The complete removal of empire standing need in anchor will have some very subtle and rippling effects in other areas. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:07:00 -
[2121] - Quote
With merge of extra materials into base materials, if I understand correctly, insurance on many hulls will significantly go up.
My question is how are ships insured pre-patch going to pay out if destroyed after patch - old rate or new rate? |
iwannadig
Nagibators Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 10:23:00 -
[2122] - Quote
As a part of industry UI improvements I would like to have an opportunity to link not only item from item blueprint, but also item blueprint from item (where applicable). |
Leptus
3 Musketeer's
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 01:55:00 -
[2123] - Quote
This dev blog states:
"-Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials."
So CCP is going to force industry players to put all of their BPO's into the POS and at risk . This is not a risk reward design. Industry corps may have billions of isk and years tied up in researched BPO's for copy/ building . This is the industrialist profession and how they sustain income. To force all of our assets into space for the taking is ridiculous. This turns contracts into a shopping list of POS's to plunder for the BPO one is looking for. A couple of BS BPO's are worth attacking a POS, what about the corps with carrier, titans, or T2 BPO's?
If CCP is attempting to cut off supplies and alienate high sec industrialist then this is the way to do it. |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
130
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 15:45:00 -
[2124] - Quote
Leptus wrote:So CCP is going to force industry players to put all of their BPO's into the POS and at risk . This is not a risk reward design. Industry corps may have billions of isk and years tied up in researched BPO's for copy/ building . This is the industrialist profession and how they sustain income. To force all of our assets into space for the taking is ridiculous. This turns contracts into a shopping list of POS's to plunder for the BPO one is looking for. A couple of BS BPO's are worth attacking a POS, what about the corps with carrier, titans, or T2 BPO's?
If CCP is attempting to cut off supplies and alienate high sec industrialist then this is the way to do it. Shhh.... no one tell Leptus about BPCs, or he might put them in the POS instead of his BPOs.
Really, it will take two minutes to remove a BPO from POS, assuming you're starting in station in the same system, with a negligible financial loss, because you aren't going to be building off a BPO. That's why CCP is changing copy times to be 80% of build. Your risk isn't actually going up all that much if you know what the heck you're doing.
Yeah, there will be a lot of tears when this hits because of the throngs of players that spent so much time whining about it instead of preparing for it. These players will find themselves kicked out of the profession in the initial rush to pop Research POSes. That will leave the landscape dominated by the active and prepared, and then, eventually, people will learn that it's not worth it to siege a high-sec POS just for the chance at a few BPCs. |
KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 05:30:00 -
[2125] - Quote
i think the game will truly become game changing if
1) POS now can truly be anchored anywhere, except for restricted zones like 100km away from stargates, from NPC stations, etc. 2) since now bases can be anywhere, MOON GOO should also now be re-randomized and repopulated to EVERYWHERE. moon mining should then be allowed in HS too. 3) in light of what mechanisms planet PI uses, moon mining should also adopt similar mechanisms. moon goo runs a certain cycle before it runs out (maybe 4 weeks? 8 weeks?) then cosmic randomization occurs. its just like W-space, you dont really know where the next exit will pop out of. goo hunters need to rescan for new moon to mine the goo. 4) amount of base materials used to construct items in eve should require a rebalance.
if not otherwise, all that the changes thats been said is only because a certain group asks for it in their advantage but not necessarily for the good of the game and all players as a whole. then why therefore do we sub for a game that only changes mechanisms that will benefit a certain group of voices and not all? WUT ??? |
KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 05:37:00 -
[2126] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Khan'nikki wrote:POS DEATH & DESTRUCTION
Congrats on the lifting of Standings for structures in Highsec Space! Score one for small biz.
Now next on the list -- taking care of the Moon Squatters. Folks that anchor and forget.
Here's an idea: Moon Starbases that are not powered up take long term damage (be it NPC pirates, meteorites or just plain bad space mojo) and ultimately die. Their shields go down and structures decay. Maybe they spawn some kind of site that can be salvaged, raided, scanned .. you're the Makers.
.. just make them go away!
This would take care of the windfall that some ppl expect from the 'Can I Haz your lootz' of hacking into abandoned labs and such, while providing more anchorable places.
Thanks for reading! Or you could... You know... Use the mechanics available to you and war dec the Corp and knock their tower out yourself instead of asking CCP to do it for you.
what if ... goonwaffe or moar tears (or some commerce entity) deliberately setup POS squats using proxy corps and jams up entire systems? for their own economic advantage?
so similarly, by that few minutes of deployment, someone will need hours to rip it down. so the best suggestion to CCP is, if a tower is left unattended for over 6 hours, it should AUTO un-ANCHOR! like mobile depots ...
if the POS does not auto-un-anchors based on my version of mechanics then we know these peeps are active in their POS squats and they need to put in man power/hours to POS squat / re-arm them
i will like to HIGHLIGHT that devs should they themselves play as INDY for a few weeks or months before attempting to tweak or change things. as it is, a sandbox, we are playing a defective game and we just got used to it thats all. and we do get around to things we need to do eventually, and i think that is what bug fixers hope we do ... ignore bugs highlighted. WUT ??? |
Sigras
Conglomo
816
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 10:58:00 -
[2127] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:i think the game will truly become game changing if
1) POS now can truly be anchored anywhere, except for restricted zones like 100km away from stargates, from NPC stations, etc. I sincerely hope you mean cant be posted on grid with stargates, NPC stations, etc. otherwise I would like to introduce you to large artillery batteries which have a 250 km range
KanashiiKami wrote:2) since now bases can be anywhere, MOON GOO should also now be re-randomized and repopulated to EVERYWHERE. moon mining should then be allowed in HS too. wow ... clearly you dont know how this game works... Within a month Goonswarm would lock up every moon thats valuable and anyone trying to stop them would simply get rofl-stompped by a billion RR sentry dominixs... taking out towers in high sec requires numbers that few can muster
KanashiiKami wrote:3) in light of what mechanisms planet PI uses, moon mining should also adopt similar mechanisms. moon goo runs a certain cycle before it runs out (maybe 4 weeks? 8 weeks?) then cosmic randomization occurs. its just like W-space, you dont really know where the next exit will pop out of. goo hunters need to rescan for new moon to mine the goo. You have obviously never used moon probes... try scanning a few thousand moon and then think about doing that every month... Also have you given any thought to what it would do to the market as people horde mats for the upcoming reshuffle? or you know... any thought into this idea at all?
KanashiiKami wrote:4) amount of base materials used to construct items in eve should require a rebalance. yeah because that wouldnt take a ridiculously long time
KanashiiKami wrote:if not otherwise, all that the changes thats been said is only because a certain group asks for it in their advantage but not necessarily for the good of the game and all players as a whole. then why therefore do we sub for a game that only changes mechanisms that will benefit a certain group of voices and not all? I would respond to this if it were written in english... |
Sigras
Conglomo
816
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 11:01:00 -
[2128] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:Sigras wrote:Khan'nikki wrote:POS DEATH & DESTRUCTION
Congrats on the lifting of Standings for structures in Highsec Space! Score one for small biz.
Now next on the list -- taking care of the Moon Squatters. Folks that anchor and forget.
Here's an idea: Moon Starbases that are not powered up take long term damage (be it NPC pirates, meteorites or just plain bad space mojo) and ultimately die. Their shields go down and structures decay. Maybe they spawn some kind of site that can be salvaged, raided, scanned .. you're the Makers.
.. just make them go away!
This would take care of the windfall that some ppl expect from the 'Can I Haz your lootz' of hacking into abandoned labs and such, while providing more anchorable places.
Thanks for reading! Or you could... You know... Use the mechanics available to you and war dec the Corp and knock their tower out yourself instead of asking CCP to do it for you. what if ... goonwaffe or moar tears (or some commerce entity) deliberately setup POS squats using proxy corps and jams up entire systems? for their own economic advantage? great... so they put up say 25 towers achieving full moon coverage with a proxy corp. This costs them about 2 billion ISK and leaves them with no defenders for the towers and no advantage as they're not onlining any of these towers... that seems like a great plan... |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
43
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 15:32:00 -
[2129] - Quote
After 100+ pages and thousands of posts between several related threads I really hope CCP really reconsiders some of the intended changes.
Particularly...
- Complete removal of empire standings to anchor a tower (an encroachment model is better, starting at .5)
- Forcing BPOs to be at the POS (remote from office in same system works! so leave it be)
- Requiring multiple labs/arrays to achieve optimal bonuses
- Several other changes I've mentioned about a dozen times but don't feel like iterating again.
It would also be nice to make the graphical part of the new UI scalable to some degree, it takes up too much display real estate as is.
Also I've already noticed the placement of multiple idle towers in systems with ice belts by single corporations, none where from the big low or null alliances but it does show people are quite willing to squat to annoy those w/o standing req's placing in beneficial locations where the new compression arrays be of most use. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Aliastra Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 07:02:00 -
[2130] - Quote
If i hade the choice betwin accepting all the changes in sirus or remowe it all,then trash it i say,thats hove bad som of this changes are to me. |
|
|
|
|
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 |