Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
24
   |
Posted - 2011.11.16 02:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:There is nothing wrong with the current booster system that would justify these drastic changes.
The whole point of boosters is a fun edge that comes with a cost - the fact they are risky, fun, and rare is what makes them part of the underworld of EvE. So many players want more bountyhunting / smuggling / drugmaking type activities, this change just clips the balls right off of booster use and makes their usage not a risky tactical choice, but an issue of pure economics. Now, you'd be foolish not to use them, demand will rise, to the point where it boils down to whether the isk is worth sacrificing for the hull you are piloting.
Anyone with experience using boosters knows how to moderate the side effects - skills and implants can make them happen only in rare circumstances, and careful ship pairing makes it irrelevent in a lot of cases even if you DO get the side effects.
The fact that they were unpopular because of side effects is only due to lack of player understanding / knowledge. The pro's knew they weren't a crippling factor to begin with. I really don't think removing the side effects is the way to make them more widespread.
Besides, the production seems to be bottlenecked at the source anyways - unless the drop rates for all the BPC's and gas clouds has been increased, this will only cause production levels to remain the same, and prices to skyrocket beyond being worth using.
With these changes, and no side effects, there is simply no reason not to use Strong, all the time. Since 8 Alliances have 100% lockdown on the 8 constellations where these blueprints spawn, these changes will fill their coffers up but no one elses. Booster use will become solely dependent on whether you have the riches to use them - these changes only favor the rich, not the brave.
I'm all for Booster adjustments, but the proposed changes seem bizarrely arbitrary. I'm hoping a developer can step in and share their thoughts, this is a pretty big set of changes to just slip in to SiSi without a blog and opportunity for more widespread feedback. There are a lot of problems that should be thoroughly discussed first before this hits Tranquility.
So what your saying is that right now drugs are risky, rare, and only used tactically.
Except that
1) Pro's know they are not risky
2) They are rare only becauase those who are not pro dont have the knowledge to the contrary.
Given that drugs are not risky, they are already being used by pro's when it is economically feasible (given the hull), so that argument is out.
Given that drugs are not already risky, then the argument that changes will make drugs used by rich people instead of "brave" people is laughable.
You also claim that reducing the side effects will not foster the use of drugs, but then complain that drug demand (and therefore price) will sky rocket.
Soooo many contradictions. |