JanSVK
Benzene Inc.
The Explicit Alliance
2
   |
Posted - 2014.04.30 07:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! The goals of this change are: - Stimulate the isotope (and therefore ice) market to help cushion any drop in demand from players using smaller starbases after the science and industry slot changes.
- Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
- Although we don't expect this change to significantly impact behavior around jump drive power projection, it should at least provide a small incentive change through higher costs for moving huge capital fleets often.
For reference, this will increase the cost of running a max skilled Rhea from Jita to RIT-A7 (jump drive transit the whole way) from ~50m isk to ~75m isk.
Hello CCP Fozzie
I don't agree with these changes and with the argument provided. If anything the ice belts should get a buff because ...
* Stimulate the isotope... - The science and industry changes highly motivates people to use more POSs and JF so an increase in demad should be expected not a decline. Buf to Reprocessing Array = more POS. Also due to the reprocessing changes it is to be expected that mining will change so that Ore mined in hi-sec will be:
1, compressed (POS = isotope consumtion)
2, hauled to 0.0 (JF = isotope consumtion)
3, Refined
4, hauled to empire (JF = isotope consumtion)
5, sold, ect...
To the slot changes...
Building better Worlds Dev Blog wrote:
So player corporations will now have the choice between the safety of NPC stations or the efficiency of Starbases to operate. The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked or be reactive enough to take the blueprints out before they go into reinforced mode.
So it is logical that POSs will be used more and will use large POS because The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases. It is much easier to defend a large POS than a small one. There is no argument about that.
Question
If it turns out that your assumtions where wrong, can we expect
CCP Fozzie wrote: adjust further if necessary once we see the results.
bact to original values or even lowering of isotope consumtion? |