| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
VaL Iscariot
The Concilium Enterprises
Spectrum Alliance
13
   |
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:17:00 -
[241] - Quote
80 million isk to build
2 hours with a 20 man battleship fleet to destroy the npc/player structure + reinforced timer adding a extra 24 hours
more timers
odds of someone coming back and blowing up your structure in the exact same way: near 100%
probability that these will only be found on plasma planets: HIGH
chance to charge a total stranger 100k isk to launch down to a planet?
priceless.
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:32:00 -
[242] - Quote
VaL Iscariot wrote:80 million isk to build
2 hours with a 20 man battleship fleet to destroy the npc/player structure + reinforced timer adding a extra 24 hours
More like 20 minutes. It took me 50 minutes to blow up a npc CO on sisi with an unskilled dread.
Compared with a similar-priced ship, it's still a huge effort. |
ShipSpinner
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:55:00 -
[243] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:John DaiSho wrote:And would kill almost all reasons to try to defend your own POCO
In wormholes that's irrelevant... the PCO will be reinforced for longer than the wormhole the people that cami in and shot it up will be open. They'll be gone, you repair it.
You don't have to leave the same way you came in.
If someone really wants to destroy your POCOs, they can and will. Either make sure you never annoy anyone enough to make the commit a day, or be ready to defend it. Considering that you're in completely lawless space, even more so than 0.0, maybe you should consider the latter anyways. |
Cerulean Ice
EVE University
Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:16:00 -
[244] - Quote
Maybe the (already started) POS fuel price hikes will make highsec PI profitable... and with no hassle of POCOs. One more reason POCOs are a bad idea. Making highsec PI more profitable while increasing the complexity and difficulty of lowsec/nulsec/wh PI only means one thing. Fewer industrialists putting their shiny haulers at risk. That means less conflict, less things getting blown up, less fun for everyone. I thought the point was to increase pew pew, not decrease it.
Can we skip to the part where you undo this horrible change and save everyone the trouble?
Also, if there really is some alleged way this will interact with DUST, can you tell us what this mystical secret is? All this DUST keeps getting into my EVE before it's even released. Bad CCP, no biscuit. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
129
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:24:00 -
[245] - Quote
I think your transitional INTERBUS POCO's are going to hurt more than help.
In the end though, my main concern is still the DEFENDABLE nature of these POCO's.
Here's the scenario :
Group A is using Interbus POCO's.
Group B decide to take down the Interbus CO to take advantage of said Group A's taxes for themselves.
Group B puts up their POCO in hopes of making money off of Group A.
Group C sees Group B's POCO's and decides to shoot at it for fun.
Group B has NO CHOICE except to come at time x to defend, potentially against a larger group that doesn't care at ALL about the POCO or the planet.
Why does Group B have no other plan of defense except to hope that they don't get hot-dropped by 50 carriers at the POCO?
If you give a defense option, such as disabling the timer, then you can force the aggressive forces to have to COMMIT to really WANTING to attack the POCO. The issue is attackers have no commitment to attacking, and defenders have no choice to preempt attacks.
It's really a ****** scenario especially in low sec, and you need to acknowledge it and put in a fix for this.
NOSTRO AURUM NON EST AURUM VULGI |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
140
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:06:00 -
[246] - Quote
Don't make the tax a percentage. Allow it to be a fixed value per unit for P0 P1 P2 P3 P4 to enable a more flexible fee schedule. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
297
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:02:00 -
[247] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Ayesha Arkaral wrote:All I can do is offer up what kind of player I am and how this might affect me.
I'm fairly new, I was having some fun doing some high sec missions and trading but I've moved from that, I've just recently moved into w-space. I find it to be much more fun as there's always something new that can happen every day from new entrances/exits.
I acquire all of my POS fuel in-system. I do not have the funds or means to erect player-controlled COs at this point. I fully expect to become someone's static and for them to grief my Interbus COs within a week, hell I wouldn't be surprised really if it took a day given the types I've encountered in w-space. So what does this mean... I will need to buy fuel on the Market? Yeah, along with everyone else? I know a little bit about basic supply and demand and this seems like demand is going to utterly skyrocket. There is no way I will be able to remain in my hole. I'm going to be kicked out of doing what I like. Sounds awesome!
I could stock up on fuel before hand, but wait, I can't because it's going to be a different fuel type. It's already too late anyway. Actually you will be able to stock up in advance, or build your own, before the transition. In your WH do you typically have hostile groups hanging in there for more than 24 hours? If not then putting up your own CO's doesn't sound all that risky, considering their reinforcement tiner and the fact that you can repair them. He's talking about the time period before he can afford to put up PCOs... if someone comes in on a whim and blows away his current customs offices before he can get the PCOs his PI is effectively halted. It's an ill-thought solution that doesn't really fix anything. If the customs offices remained invulnerable and simply deactivated in the presence of a PCO, reactivating if/when it's removed this would solve any and all issues that can be had with broken PI.
Yep yep, thanks Ingvar. I misread that part of his post. i thought he was talking about stocking up on fuel.
To kill the enemy and break their toys!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
297
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:04:00 -
[248] - Quote
Hmmm, perhaps the second part of this that we won't see until next year will be that you can easily defend your customs office with your planetary defense guns. 
We know they are coming, it's just a question of when.
That might just bring a smile to a lot of peoples faces.
To kill the enemy and break their toys!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
pussnheels
Vintage heavy industries
169
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:08:00 -
[249] - Quote
Dear CCP do you actually read the feedback ; on those 89 pages of feed back the overwhelming majority said NO bad idea
and what did you do ?? Yep just went ahead and itroduced a new game mechanic that will NEVER work
Why ccp WHY
I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
297
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:10:00 -
[250] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:Dear CCP do you actually read the feedback ; on those 89 pages of feed back the overwhelming majority said NO bad idea
and what did you do ?? Yep just went ahead and itroduced a new game mechanic that will NEVER work
Why ccp WHY
They addressed pretty much the only valid points made in those 89 pages. 88 pages were hysterical rewording of the exact same non-fact based imaginings.
To kill the enemy and break their toys!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
|
|
Havegun Willtravel
Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:56:00 -
[251] - Quote
Bloodpetal
Group A is using Interbus POCO's.
Group B decide to take down the Interbus CO to take advantage of said Group A's taxes for themselves.
Group B puts up their POCO in hopes of making money off of Group A.
Group C sees Group B's POCO's and decides to shoot at it for fun.
Group B has NO CHOICE except to come at time x to defend, potentially against a larger group that doesn't care at ALL about the POCO or the planet.
Why does Group B have no other plan of defense except to hope that they don't get hot-dropped by 50 carriers at the POCO?
If you give a defense option, such as disabling the timer, then you can force the aggressive forces to have to COMMIT to really WANTING to attack the POCO. The issue is attackers have no commitment to attacking, and defenders have no choice to preempt attacks.
It's really a ****** scenario especially in low sec, and you need to acknowledge it and put in a fix for this.
-- Not an unlikely scenario but with a few small flaws. You're pre-supposing that Group B's only interest is to tax Group A and not do PI themselves. In which case they have a less than solid business plan which is likely to fail anyway. Second, you pre-suppose that they're never around to defend prior to the CO getting re-inforced. Yes this does occur in null with renters almost never seeing or getting support from the sov holder, but the very nature of putting up a PCO is aimed at people who actively occupy the space they'll be set up in and dis-favors absentee landlords. This is good in my opinion. If you're going to put up a CO in low sec you'd best be a regular if not permanent resident or the obvious will happen. Preempt attacks by being active in your space and killing them before the CO gets re-inforced.
Is it remotely possible that a very small number of entrepreneurial pirate corps will take advantage of this new feature and set up PCO'S ? Maybe. Do i truely believe that a roaming gang in low sec is going to take 30 min out of their day to ref a PCO in the hopes of getting a fight. Only if they see 10 or 15 of the owning corp in local. Otherwise it's highly doubtful they'll waste the ammo. Or come back X number of hours later to finish the job.
The people who i expect to see the most action are W space residents. Interbus CO's dont have re-inforce timers. They just die. If you were planning on kiling all the Interbus CO's in you hole anyway a roaming gang is doing you a favor by killing them. If however you wanted to just leave the Interbus Co's in place, then the w space roamers are going to be able to bait you into alot of fights.
|
Dr Mercy
Doctrine.
FEARLESS.
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 21:08:00 -
[252] - Quote
I hope this doesn't get lost in the many many pages of responses here, but I have a question relating to the tariff levels.
I know that you are intending that a tariff level of 5% would mean PI taxes at the same level that they are now. But do you intend to amend the tariff rates for each PI export? The ratio for each export varies wildly:
The current tariff rates are:
P0 0.1
P1 0.76
P29
P3600
P450000
Comparing this against the average market prices for each PI tier you can see that the Tax Ratios per PI tier are not even. P4 materials are especially penalised.
tax ratio (x1000)
P11.70
P21.26
P310.59
P448.42
Do you intend to ever 're-balance' the tariff levels for each tier so that they are more in line with each other? |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
365
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 21:49:00 -
[253] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Don't make the tax a percentage. Allow it to be a fixed value per unit for P0 P1 P2 P3 P4 to enable a more flexible fee schedule.
That's already how it works - the percentage rate that you set is "percent of the maximum possible tariff" that you're charging for import/export.
(Which goes back to my complaint on page 3 or 4 that the percent signs are going to confuse a lot of people. It's a percentage of the maximum possible tariff, not a percentage of market value.) |
Zleon Leigh
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 23:10:00 -
[254] - Quote
Just a total bad idea being ram rodded along by people to big headed to admit it's a big mistake.
Deja Boo!
Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |
Lone Gunman
Forhotea Corporation
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 23:25:00 -
[255] - Quote
I donGÇÖt know about you but I just received the Volume #68 of the EvE Online newsletter, where they are touting the Crucible Expansion, which mostly just consists of some balancing, artwork changes and four new ships. Although I appreciate the fact that these improvements are free, my interpretation of an Expansion is adding Wormholes (Apocrypha) , Moongoo (tech 2) Planetary interaction, Incursion and even the Sovereignty changes in Dominion that were noted in Volume #34 of the EvE Online Newsletter. How many corporations boarded up and left for Greener Pastures online after that mess?
If CCP thinks that these changes to PI are so great why are they hiding this fact in their newsletter? IGÇÖll tell you why most people donGÇÖt read the Dev Blogs or announcements. If they did you would get 10x as many negative post on this subject and most people who have suspended their accounts wouldnGÇÖt come within a hundred miles of this disaster and CCP knows this. I actually did not know myself this was happening until I was informed of the changes by the Pirate group that inhabits my Low Security PI system in Black Rise. I could actually hear them Salivating over Team Speak.
So to make things easier for CCP I have written the announcement for them so that they can add this to Volume #69 of the Eve Online Newsletter which makes sense as we are all getting screwed.
Going back on HilmarGÇÖs promise to listen to vast majority of EvE players and catering only to the delinquents and Sociopaths of EvE (which includes the CSM) and because its taking too long to develop Dust 514. The Eve online Crucible expansion will include the following new Planetary Interaction GÇ£featuresGÇ¥.
Player owned Customs office (POCOGÇÖs) in Low and Null space that will cost Millions of ISK to deploy and only have enough hit points for about 20 minutes for a small Battleship fleet. Better yet they are unprotected! ThatGÇÖs right no station guns! Anybody at anytime can come by shoot at your POCO whenever with complete impunity? The Null Sec trolls on the forums are defending this GÇ£FeatureGÇ¥ for PI but if we did the same for Moon towers, oh the tears.
Now you can control who uses YOUR POCO so all you have to do is take over all of the limited Plasma Planets in the EvE Universe and Hey you can corner the market on say Chiral structures, because we did not learn the same lesson with Dysporite. But donGÇÖt worry if this becomes a problem we will come up with a solution like PI Alchemy.
And as a bonus if you are first online when the expansion hits. In addition to a useless implant you can destroy as many Interbus Customs offices as possible and anything inside left by unsuspecting players in different time zones.
So Pinch yourself because Eve Online is turning into Star Trek online.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
486
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 01:00:00 -
[256] - Quote
Dr Mercy wrote:As you can see, P4 products have a PI tax almost 50 times higher than P1 or P2 products, when compared to final market prices.
Do you intend to ever 're-balance' the tariff levels for each tier so that they are more in line with each other?
Tax rates really should be doing the base mineral price thing that insurance does; recalculate per-item base price ever month or so.
84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
Mishatola
Atoll Explorers
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 02:19:00 -
[257] - Quote
Ok, ran some numbers on those tax rates and i'm worried.
They need to be high enough so that my future overlord gets some benefit from opening up his CO to me, rather than eluding everyone not in his corp ... so that they get more stuff from the planet with their own colonies. right now they are so low that its better for a corp to not open it up!!! |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
130
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 03:29:00 -
[258] - Quote
I thought you said that it shouldn't be able to be put up at a POS?
POCO inside POS
Not only that, it can be put up inside a POS shield...
Now that I have your attention, let's talk about giving defenders a Defensive Choice rather than only being a victim of random attackers that don't care if they commit.
POCO attackers need to have a COMMITMENT to an attack (like SBU's that cost money) not just a random pinata in space for random griefers to hit. This seriously needs consideration to fix.
NOSTRO AURUM NON EST AURUM VULGI |
Bull Eramix
Mimidae Risk Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 03:42:00 -
[259] - Quote
You could always anchor one outside of a station to prevent people from ganking haulers... the station guns would help if they go GCC.
Same outcome if people attack it?
http://imgur.com/REHaC
|
Meldan Anstian
Imperial Genesis
The Seventh Day
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 04:13:00 -
[260] - Quote
Mishatola wrote:Ok, ran some numbers on those tax rates and i'm worried.
They need to be high enough so that my future overlord gets some benefit from opening up his CO to me, rather than eluding everyone not in his corp ... so that they get more stuff from the planet with their own colonies. right now they are so low that its better for a corp to not open it up!!!
Yup, that was pointed out in the original thread and was ignored.
But hey, they made the cargo capacity of the PCO 35000 m3!!! /sarcasm off
|
|
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
368
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 05:27:00 -
[261] - Quote
Revisiting suggested numbers from post #96 in this thread.
1. Hi-sec COs need to charge a 50% tariff.
- This gives lo-sec POCOs a lot more headroom with which to compete on tariff rates in order to draw in clients. If hi-sec COs charge 10%, people are going to look at lo-sec POCOs attempting to charge 30-50% and scoff - even if they could net more product per day from a PI harvest world in lo-sec.
- It puts a hard cap on how badly a POCO owner can screw you over with the tariff rate when compared to just going to hi-sec and using a hi-sec CO. Currently, with the hi-sec COs using a 10% tariff, if the POCO owner decides to suddenly charge you 100%, you're being soaked for 10x what you would have paid in hi-sec. If the hi-sec COs charge a 50% tariff, then the worst-case with a POCO is that you'll pay 2x more tariffs. That reduces the main worry with a POCO to being locked out entirely.
2. The tariffs across tiers need to make sense and should be based on the ratios of inputs to outputs between the tiers. It gets a bit odd in the P3 and P4 product chains, but you can pick a middle point for those tiers and use a simple multiplier to set the base tariffs.
- Alternately, CCP needs to set the tariffs at the start of each month based on some percentage of the 5% or 10% sell volume across all of hi-sec.
Approximate ratios between the tiers. P0 = 1x
P0:P1 is 150x (so the P1 tariff should be 150x the P0 tariff)
P2 is 2400x (P1:P2 ratio is 16:1, so P2 tariff should be 2400x the P0 tariff)
P3 - 20400x (which is an 8.5 ratio above P2, some P3 is a 6.67:1 ratio of P2:P3, other is a 10:1 ratio)
P4 - 307200x (which is 128:1 over the P3)
Suggested tariffs (for hi-sec, assuming that the hi-sec COs are set to a 50% tariff setting):
P0 - 0.25 / 0.50
P1 - 37.5 / 75 (P0 tariff x 150)
P2 - 600 / 1200 (P0 tariff x 2400)
P3 - 5100 / 10200 (P0 tariff x 20400)
P4 - 76800 / 153600 (P0 tariff x 307200)
Impacts:
- The lower priced P1 goods will have to go up in price in order to be viable with the higher export taxes. Instead of 150-800 for P1, you're more likely to see 250-900 ISK/u market sell prices.
- For P2, which are 4500-11000, the price band will have to rise a bit into the 6000-12500 range.
- For P3, the impact won't be as large, but instead of paying 22000-65000, you'll have to pay 35000-75000 for P3s.
- For P4, the impact will be less and most goods will only go up about 50-60k ISK/u in price. But since the inputs will probably be more expensive, expect P4 prices in the 800k to 1600k range.
Alternate write-up:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=374795#post374795 |
pussnheels
Vintage heavy industries
169
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 08:52:00 -
[262] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:pussnheels wrote:Dear CCP do you actually read the feedback ; on those 89 pages of feed back the overwhelming majority said NO bad idea
and what did you do ?? Yep just went ahead and itroduced a new game mechanic that will NEVER work
Why ccp WHY They addressed pretty much the only valid points made in those 89 pages. 88 pages were hysterical rewording of the exact same non-fact based imaginings.
NO the whole concept is just utterly stupid , the devs stated that they expect more corporation working together , basicly they have NO idea how players view their competition ; like a earlier poster wrote EVE turns peiople into evil beings
Nobody trust others outside the core of their own corporation
another fact they will be on killmails , GRIEFERS UNITE here is a new toy for them
Are you willing to invest 800 mil to 1.8 bil to get your own POCO knowing they will never repay them or knowing that the first idiot with too much time can blow them up
Nah i am really getting pissed at CCP , they like a bunch of lords high in their castle who have NO idea what is happening or moving among their peasants ,They don't even have any idea why people refuse to go into nullsec anymore , their only solution lets nerf high sec industry to death
Unless their is a serious revolt like last summer they will never notice
I am afraid that after the winter expansion is out and we the peasants are happy again they will just go back to their castles and do what they are good at , catering for the Nullsec highlords
I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Zleon Leigh
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 09:06:00 -
[263] - Quote
They never stopped since this is a catered development for the nullsec overlords. They get more isk with practically no risk to their investment. They couldn't have asked for anything more tailored to them.
Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |
Sanche Tehkeli
Bionesis Technologies
Electus Matari
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 10:29:00 -
[264] - Quote
Would be cool if this thread stays for its initial purpose : receiving feedback and questions for the Dev Blog author and his team, for what is written or answered. NOT to refute the feature itself (not the place, not the time, not even the right) and not theorycraft whatever local situation is or will be. There is Test Server feedback to start threads. Half posts are quote wars of arguments and it's really not the place, some would like questions answered.
Quote:
- What happen to goods in Reinforced POCOs ? Or, are POCOs still accessible while in reinforced mode, in order to move goods away ?
- Are goods in hangar jettisoned when POCOs are destroyed ?
- Are players with Planetary Installations (not necessarily from owner corp) somewhat warned when their planet's POCO is assaulted ? How to know we have to evacuate goods from POCOs before they get destroyed ?
- Are POCO grids completely static or is there a plan to be able to set a new POCO at different coordinates ?
- Are POCOs allowed to have names ?
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 10:38:00 -
[265] - Quote
Sanche Tehkeli wrote:Would be cool if this thread stays for its initial purpose : receiving feedback and questions for the Dev Blog author and his team, for what is written or answered. NOT to refute the feature itself (not the place, not the time, not even the right) and not theorycraft whatever local situation is or will be. There is Test Server feedback to start threads. Half posts are quote wars of arguments and it's really not the place, some would like questions answered.
Funnily enough, there's no official Test server thread for this feature, and player-started ones have been ignored by devs.
Meanwhile, most of your questions were answered in the previous thread:
* What happen to goods in Reinforced POCOs ? Or, are POCOs still accessible while in reinforced mode, in order to move goods away ?
Yes, POCOs are operative while reinforced.
* Are goods in hangar jettisoned when POCOs are destroyed ?
No. CCP doesnt want POCOs shot for loot, so they drop nothing.
* Are players with Planetary Installations (not necessarily from owner corp) somewhat warned when their planet's POCO is assaulted ? How to know we have to evacuate goods from POCOs before they get destroyed ?
Not answered, but I would guess not.
* Are POCO grids completely static or is there a plan to be able to set a new POCO at different coordinates ?
POCOs can be anchored anywhere within 10000 km of a planet.
* Are POCOs allowed to have names ?
No. Probably because of the "time to *****" rule, that they are visible in the entire system (unlike towers), and the sheer number makes names hard to police (unlike 0.0 outposts). |
rootimus maximus
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 11:14:00 -
[266] - Quote
Sanche Tehkeli wrote:some would like questions answered. Quote:
- What happen to goods in Reinforced POCOs ? Or, are POCOs still accessible while in reinforced mode, in order to move goods away ?
- Are goods in hangar jettisoned when POCOs are destroyed ?
- Are players with Planetary Installations (not necessarily from owner corp) somewhat warned when their planet's POCO is assaulted ? How to know we have to evacuate goods from POCOs before they get destroyed ?
- Are POCO grids completely static or is there a plan to be able to set a new POCO at different coordinates ?
- Are POCOs allowed to have names ?
All those questions were answered in the original thread on player-owned customs offices. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
133
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 12:39:00 -
[267] - Quote
Does CCP want any player feedback or testing on the POCOs?
This is one of the very few expansion features without its own thread on the Test Server Feedback forum. They haven't even seeded the gantry structures on Sisi, so to test this feature on the test server, you have to jump through hoops and run FW missions on there. Even without an official thread, people are posting about it and the devs are not replying.
Omen dissapeared from the thread after just a couple hours (even faster than the last time). Is he even still reading? Will he post again? Or does he only communicate through devblogs?
I was looking forward to POCOs. But at this rate, it looks like the rollout will be a complete mess. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
557
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 13:04:00 -
[268] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Does CCP want any player feedback or testing on the POCOs?
This is one of the very few expansion features without its own thread on the Test Server Feedback forum. They haven't even seeded the gantry structures on Sisi, so to test this feature on the test server, you have to jump through hoops and run FW missions on there. Even without an official thread, people are posting about it and the devs are not replying.
Omen dissapeared from the thread after just a couple hours (even faster than the last time). Is he even still reading? Will he post again? Or does he only communicate through devblogs?
I was looking forward to POCOs. But at this rate, it looks like the rollout will be a complete mess.
It seems like they've decided that the players be damned, they're emotionally attached to this idea so they're doing it whatever the consequences. Simple, common sense things, like leaving customs offices indestructible and offlining them in the presense of a PCO, would alleviate most of the concerns out there and allow these to smoothly flow into the system... but to hell with common sense. They want it NOW, not when it's done right.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
John DaiSho
Applied Creations
The Fendahlian Collective
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 13:41:00 -
[269] - Quote
Wheres the common sense that Interbus is going to offline their COs only because some capsuleer thinks he has to anchor his own CO at a planet?
Why is it a problem anyway that COs can be killed and need to be defended if you dont want your PI infrastructure crippled?
Why dont you defend your assets?
Why dont you go to highsec if you dont want to? There are Concord COs everywhere and you will always be able to acces them. But if you want more yield from your extractors then you have to fight for it.
o/ John |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
557
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 13:50:00 -
[270] - Quote
John DaiSho wrote:Wheres the common sense that Interbus is going to offline their COs only because some capsuleer thinks he has to anchor his own CO at a planet?
Why is it a problem anyway that COs can be killed and need to be defended if you dont want your PI infrastructure crippled?
Why dont you defend your assets?
Why dont you go to highsec if you dont want to? There are Concord COs everywhere and you will always be able to acces them. But if you want more yield from your extractors then you have to fight for it.
o/ John
What you view as "common sense" is irrelevant to good gameplay, else there would never have been customs offices in wormholes in the first place.
One big problem that you're seemingly incapable of grasping is with low sec PI being run by folks in NPC corps. If you have some blowfish in low put up a PCO on planets they're using, they're screwed. Even if they go and blow it up, they still can't do their PI because now there's nothing there at all. They have nothing to fight for at all and simply go away. However, if you have the customs offices currently present come back online when the PCO is destroyed you've added a whole new dynamic... the people in high sec have something to actually fight for! They can now go into low, blow the offending PCO to hell and back and regain access to their PI. This is the kind of dynamic that can pull people together for a common goal... the current system simply pushes them away as irrelevant.
By the way, Sparky, I live in a wormhole. Aside from the unnecessary logistical pain in the ass this poorly thought out concept introduces this will ultimately have little effect on me over time... unless I move holes or the like. However, I'm capable of thinking outside the hole to see the bigger picture. You should try it.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |