| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
41
   |
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Was ready to do my voting but want to know where the candidates now stand on the Industry changes as this a major topic I am concerned with.
1. What is your overall agreement or disagreement with the Refining/Processing Changes. Please give details.
2. What is your overall agreement or disagreement with the Industry changes. Please give details.
3. With Regards to the POS standings changes are you for or against anybody be able to put up a POS in high sec? Why?
|
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
45
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 03:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
I appreciate the quick response to my questions.
I am not of the opinion the sky is falling.
I am neutral on the refining changes. I don't believe I get hurt by the changes and since my end result of refining stays the same it just seems to be more complicated than needed. If the change has a longer term goal then great, but to make it complicated to get the same result seems unnecessary. I agree with the the reprocessing of modules changes and the changes to buff nullsec just dont think the rest of it is necessary.
The only industry change that I am not in favor of is the POS standings removal. My initial take is this is going to cause more wars and also gives the null sec Alliance's the ability to take over hi-sec. I understand eve is pvp and understand hi-sec is not safe. I just believe right now there is a good balance between safe and unsafe and that situation does not need to change. I just do not feel at this time the POS standings removal is a necessary change. This seems more PvP inspired than industry inspired without more information. It also seems to go against the desire to see more players move out of hi-sec.
It is unfortunate that the dev blogs about the summer expansion are not out before the CSM elections and it would be nice if the theme of the winter expansion were available also. I would rather put somebody in to office for what CCP is going to be working on than vote for somebody who's agenda is not in the ball park. I believe CCP has some idea of what they are going to do within the next year or two. I do not believe if you voted all PVE candidates in to office that CCP would significantly change there plans. Its good to have a variety of CSM members but I also think you want the expert players of that area CCP is going to change on the CSM.
Again thank you for your responses. And thank you for your hard work on the game we all love to play. |
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
45
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 12:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Killian Redbeard wrote:My initial take is this is going to cause more wars and also gives the null sec Alliance's the ability to take over hi-sec. Err... just like highsec POCOs gave nullsec alliances the ability to "take over highsec"?  (For the unaware we only had a few dozen POCOs at most, and transferred them over to RvB about a month ago as miniluv was tired of doing things that weren't suicide ganking) Ask yourself a question though - all else equal, why would nullsec alliances want to drop POS in highsec when they can drop them in their own space, where they are both more easily defended and get a significant bonus to fuel consumption? And then, if your answer is "to troll people, duh", ask yourself who's really getting trolled by setting up thousands of POS. 
I did not think nullsec would take over hisec with the poco's. This is different. Maybe my wording is incorrect in Nullsec Alliances but I believe they have the resources more than a large Corporation.
With the refining changes ore compression at a pos will be available. If a nullsec alliance needs to ship ore now they will want the compression ore, correct? So why wouldn't want to do this themselves instead of paying somebody else? This would only require 1 POS so no concern here.
Just like the Code trying to charge miners mining permits, and I know Nullsec Alliances like their rent income. Lets just say there are 20 moons in the hisec system. If you charged a 50 mil fee per month, the cost of a weeks wardec that is 1 bil isk income.
So before the changes go live you find players with 7.0 faction standing to create a small corp to go around and drop small towers on the open moon spots. Currently you would not need to fuel them until they figure out the abandon tower issue. That holding corp is part of the Alliance. You advertise the spot for sale for 100 mil isk. Your profit for selling the location is 25 mil per moon. Also on the day of launch you can have a person in an industrial logged out at each system spot above 7.0 to log in as soon as the patch is applied and drop the small tower.
Small corporations can not defend a POS from large corporations or Nullsec alliances. I just do not see where the dropping of standings as a necessary change to the game.
I understand that as CSM members you have more knowledge than you can share and I respect that. If the change in standings has a bigger long term goal then great, if not, I do not agree with it. They should have left that out of the blog until they could better explain the need to drop that requirement if there is more too it. This multiple blog changes would not bother me in the winter expansion, Right now with the voting for CSM and determining who to vote for all the pieces should have been put out so that candidates could have voiced there opinions on the upcoming changes.
|
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
45
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 19:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Thanks for the explanation. I agree the ROI is not there for the nullsec alliances.
I still do not agree with the removal of the standings. It is in my opinion a working game mechanic. Taking it away is dumbing the game down. When people complain about having to do something to achieve a goal the typically answer has been HTFU that is the way the game works. Id you want a POS without standings go to lowsec.
I was going to say I hope they will give a fuel discount to the hi-sec POS owners based on standings just like nullsec gets a discount for sovereignty when it is implemented but this would screw lowsec. So without more knowledge of CCPs direction here this change does not seem to necessary.
Thanks again for the comments and your dedication to making Eve better. |
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
48
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 12:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Being in null u really dont want to put your time in thousands of high sec posses, even most poco are transferred or even not. Looked afther as its too Much hasle. I feel mine are mostly reinforced to pick s fight. Removing the standings allows more players. To get down to bussiness. Which is good. Yeah discount might Be fun with standings, but standings can be used elsewhere also.
Ure asking csm. 9, while our current csm is well aware of the. Changes and the planning of them. If anything it makes. Sense they respond. None. Of the changes so far, are a surprise. Yearsago i saw stats about which kind of players stay longest in eve.ccp used to state high sec should be a transit zone for the bulk of players. Or niche.
I think csm 8 answer your questions pretty nicely atm
Yes the csm8 answered my questions but in a week they will no longer be in office and the new CSM9 members will be the ones working with CCP to finish up the summer expansion and then move on to the winter expansion. I appreciate the answers and the work that CSM8 did. The purpose of this was to help me decide who to vote for in the election. The match vote system does not get into the purposed direction that Eve is going only generalized questions about your style of game play. Being of the same play style does not necessarily mean that you will agree with the changes CCP is making. Being a highsec dweller does not mean that I will only vote for highsec players. If CCP said that the next year was all focused on PVP, I would not vote for somebody that is only going to champion industry/PVE and does not know anything about PVP.
|
| |
|