Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
663
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:10:00 -
[331] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:Man, poor Fozzie. The only way he'll get to 10k likes now is to delete capitals, or something massive to appease the clueless fools crying "power projection" every five minutes.
more like you're a clueless fool |

Ren Coursa
Rapid Withdrawal
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:16:00 -
[332] - Quote
I'am twelve and what is this. I don't have a clue what all this means since i just fly frigs and blow up. But it's interesting to read the drama and it is also interesting to note the absence of Fozzie. He would do well in facing the critizism head on, explain and argue his point. This expansion seems to be turning into crazyness when you read peoples reactions to the industry stuff and now this.
Gonna be an interesting summer.
//Some men just want to watch the world burn. |

Dave Stark
5195
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:16:00 -
[333] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Why can't my bucket hold all these bloc tears?! 
feedback; now classed as tears. |

Amely Miles
Exiled Tech
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:21:00 -
[334] - Quote
MagnusBraxx wrote:Dear ccp fozzie...I don't like you. you are a ***!
+1 |

Nys Cron
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:33:00 -
[335] - Quote
Another change that punishes smaller groups for using capitals and won't really hurt big alliances with nearly unlimited resources. |

1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
60
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:38:00 -
[336] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:can't help but notice that all of the 'but it will hurt small alliances!' objections are from enormous nullscrub blob coalitions
Fair critique. I presume smaller groups have less income to manage fuel costs like this. I'll strike it from my posts and link your comment. |

Amera Khan
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:38:00 -
[337] - Quote
This is a horrible change. Small entities will suffer the most from this and it will barely affect big alliances. This will not have an impact on power projection of massive capital fleets, it just hurts nullsec logistics and smaller entities. |

Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
692
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:39:00 -
[338] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! [b]The plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals.
On rare ocassions, CCP come up with a half-sensible idea. Its a shame that they are far outweighed by the idiotic and dim-witted ones such as this.
God. |

Vadeim Rizen
TYR. Exodus.
40
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:41:00 -
[339] - Quote
can we get a slight slight reduction in the amount of fuel pos's use to compensate slightly for this? not only is the ice going to become more expensive meaning fuel is going to go up, but it's also going to be more expensive for the jita runs for the fuel. i only have/want 1 tower and it barely pays for itself as it is. the profitablity of moon goo is bad enough as it is. |

OptimuzPR
Oblivious Elements Collide Carthage Empires
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:44:00 -
[340] - Quote
Lady Isabell wrote:Apollo Purvon wrote:You expect highsec ice consumption to drop on the theory that people will downsize their towers, ignoring the idea that more people will drop towers because you're also removing standings requirements and giving bonuses to tower manufacturing. In order to offset this drop in Highsec consumption, you're increasing nullsec logistics costs. This is a bad fix based on a non-existent problem. ^^ Also if you really wanted to impact fuel (isotopes) for towers you could: Increase isotopes needed to produce fuel blocks (from 400 to 500 maybe?) This would impact towers directly that you are trying(??) to change without effecting logistics/jump drives/portals as much.
100% agree with Apollo there, Fozzie dropped the ball on this one! It's not broken yet and you are trying to fix it?
Lady Isabell's solution is far better if anything happens at all. |

PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1716
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:44:00 -
[341] - Quote
Hi! Let's make Logistics, one of the most mind numbingly unrewarding yet necessary time sinks in Eve online 50% more expensive. This will "help" null sec industry and simultaneously "encourage" smaller entities to get involved in null.
Oh, and we're doing this for very good reasons that are supported by empirical evidence, not baseless conjecture, assumption, and speculation regarding a given market's predicted behavior.
This is clearly a very good idea. |

PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1720
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:46:00 -
[342] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:can't help but notice that all of the 'but it will hurt small alliances!' objections are from enormous nullscrub blob coalitions Small alliance dude checking in. F*** these changes. |

Marius8
DNS Requiem Brothers of Tangra
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:47:00 -
[343] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! In the upcoming Summer release we are making a lot of changes that we expect will impact player behavior surrounding manufacturing, mining and starbase use. We see an opportunity here to make some adjustments to the way that Jump Drives consume their isotope fuel that will hit a few birds with one stone. 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.
it will more likely an increase, due to opening all systems for POS towers!
- Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
probably won't happen this way, because people use "best" ship for their needs, not the "regional optimal" because you can the ice there
- 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.
yes, it would be more expensive,but the big alliances give a "****" on higher cost of moving their fleets! So it will mostly effect the small Alliances, and the usage of JFs.The plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals. IF you truly want to do it, please do it in the first or second point release, after that time it should be obvious, if this change is really necessary!To compensate for the extra isotopes that ships will need to carry, the volume of all four isotopes will be reduced by 1/3, to 0.1m3. Thanks to Resgo for some excellent feedback.this change becomes unnecessary, if the increased fuel usage doesn't come.The storage volume of jump bridge starbase structures will be increased by 50% since Ozone volume won't be changing. this would be also obsoleteFor 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. with this announcement, the isotope prices are already rising, so when the change summer expansion hits TQ it will be more likely: price summer before expansion transit costs 75m isk; after change transit costs 112,5m isk for those, who don't want to do the math: that's around 2,25 times the cost than now (125% more)
the bolts are my two cents to it! |

xXFreshnessXx
Origin. Black Legion.
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:47:00 -
[344] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Why can't my bucket hold all these bloc tears?! 
Is that sarcasm, because this is not going to dent their or your wallet.. Follow me on Twitter @FR3SH0PShttps://twitter.com/FR3SH0PS |

Dukt Tapir
ManyTargetsMuchAmmo Brothers of Tangra
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:52:00 -
[345] - Quote
This is going to force a serious change in small corps staying in DEEP space. Too much cost to move out and work there long enough to start making money to stay already.
I applaud the effort to make deep space more self sufficent, but small corp's normally need to go to high sec often to purchase items they either can't build or do not have the skills infrastructure to create. I think this whole idea is poorly aimed. It would encourage people to move to deeper space if there was less barrier to entry not more. This whole game and many of the changes seem to favor larger alliances and not smaller groups. |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
380
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:58:00 -
[346] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Why can't my bucket hold all these bloc tears?! 
So, since Fozzie has not, explain why or how this is a well-considered and necessary change. I know you hate power projection, but does this actually work towards nerfing a coalition's ability to project power? Even if so, doesn't it cause more harm to other things than is necessary? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

T'rixie
Criminally Incompetent Baja Panti Mafia
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:05:00 -
[347] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Small alliance dude checking in. F*** these changes.
This is my first post after 4 years of playing but this needs to be echoed so here I am: unless there's more evidence than supplied in your post, Fozzie, I fear this is an unpredictable at best and terrible at worst change to make this way.
My corpie and I ran the only real JF service for a renter corp in Paragon Soul for the better part of a year and a half. We ran loot/ABC/salvage/production out and we ran fuels, ships, materials, and ammo back in. We did it because we liked living out on the edge of nowhere, but I don't think in all that time we were ever really profitable on any level with those runs. The run to/from highsec to PS cost about 100 million isk round-trip at the time at market value for 'topes, and that was using the direct (& higher risk) route. For a small corp trying to make a go of Nullsec - which is what CCP is claiming to be all about boosting now - I don't see how requiring more fuel for these runs or in general making logistics more expensive or difficult is going to do anything but make it even harder for these groups to survive.
I don't think anyone can say what effect all the industry changes are *really* going to have on isotopes until it plays out. Let it play out - there's no rush on "saving the ice miners" over the next few months.
TL;DR: Please consider what many others in this thread have already said: hold off on fuel changes until you guys see how the market responds; the unintended consequences here may be significant.
|

Scorpio DK
FireStar Inc Evictus.
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:09:00 -
[348] - Quote
this is completely and totally pointless and will not have the effect you are intending for it, reconsider it |

Kathao Crendraven
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:21:00 -
[349] - Quote
FINALLY! I was waiting for this change for so long. Finally I'm able to spend more money on fuel! I was actually crying over my satisfaction.
Also, screw small alliances. No one cares. -á |

Shinnan Krydu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:24:00 -
[350] - Quote
Does anybody really think, looking at the overall industry changes, that there won't be a wild proliferation of POS towers in empire? How can that possibly square with the stated intention of picking up "slack" in the isotope market?
I think with this change we see the true direction of the industry changes.
At first, I believed, as did many others, that the purpose was to move more profitable industry activity to nullsec.
Now, I think that what CCP is trying to do is nothing less than an attempt to tear down Jita and decentralize the EVE economy. There will be limited value in the old model of nullsec as an exporter of raw materials and an importer of finished goods. Likewise, there will be limited value in simply relocating industry operations to a nullsec locale and continuing business as usual. With transportation costs for moving materials and finished goods moving skyward (and likely to go higher) long distance commerce will quickly be limited to modules, blueprints, and compressed ore.
If CCP really, really wants nullsec to cut the Empire apron strings, though, the next thing we need is the removal of a racial preference for isotopes from capital ships.
KInd of makes you wonder: when we build Seagull's stargates, what kind of place are we going to? And will we be able to come back? Because it looks to me like CCP wants player organizations to be able to be pretty much self sufficient from the rest of the EVE universe. |

KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
560
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:27:00 -
[351] - Quote
Shinnan Krydu wrote:
KInd of makes you wonder: when we build Seagull's stargates, what kind of place are we going to? And will we be able to come back? Because it looks to me like CCP wants player organizations to be able to be pretty much self sufficient from the rest of the EVE universe.
Pretty much think CCP looking to be more than sufficient from our wallets.
CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|

Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5048
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:28:00 -
[352] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Why can't my bucket hold all these bloc tears?!  So, since Fozzie has not, explain why or how this is a well-considered and necessary change. I know you hate power projection, but does this actually work towards nerfing a coalition's ability to project power? Even if so, doesn't it cause more harm to other things than is necessary?
Wish I could answer your question with data only CCP would know. I just felt like poking fun at all the bloc alliances crying over this change. One question I would like to know is this:
What is the average isotope consumption per member of each alliance. What coalition do they belong to? Does it increase or decrease as the alliance becomes bigger?
Only CCP will know those numbers. In the meantime I will continue to laugh at coalition members who pretend to give a **** about independent small alliances. . |

Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
60
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:37:00 -
[353] - Quote
My only thoughts opinion on this is I think that isotope consumption amount on capital class vessels needs to be looked at. Currently Carriers, Dreads, Supercarriers, and Titans use the same amount of isotopes per light year of jump. I would change this to account for the mass of the ships moving. I would use 1500 for carriers, 2000 for dreads, 3000 for Super carriers, and 5000 for titans. I think it should cost more per jump to move larger ships around then it does currently. Carriers fuel bay could stay the same. Dreads would need a slight increase to make up for the increase of fuel used as you are increasing from base 25% then 25% larger fuel bay would be 10k m3, supercarriers would also need a 10k M3 fuel bay. titans have a massive fuel bay currently so I do not know if this would need to be increased with my idea. I think this would help the game and also help with power projection as right now you can move any of the combat capitals with the same cost in fuel for greatly different massed ships. |

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
450
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:40:00 -
[354] - Quote
Shinnan Krydu wrote: KInd of makes you wonder: when we build Seagull's stargates, what kind of place are we going to? And will we be able to come back? Because it looks to me like CCP wants player organizations to be able to be pretty much self sufficient from the rest of the EVE universe.
The self-sufficiency is already there, ignoring the moon minerals that need to be imported due to CCP genius. However, no one cares because not being self-sufficient is so much easier. |

gascanu
Bearing Srl.
105
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:42:00 -
[355] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone!
[b]The plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals.
.
i think this is one of those steps to decrease server lag. you know, like nerfing omnidirectional tracking links...  |

Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:51:00 -
[356] - Quote
Hold your horses!
Is there some OTHER change that CCP has not yet revelaed that will make POSes dissapear from the game "en masse" that requires some rebalancing to the isotopes?! Something CCP will only reveal at fanfest perhaps?
Now, let's see here...where are POSes used the most....moon-mining and reactions maybe?
I also saw a new type of mining-frigate linked in-game, a greenish-looking variant of the Venture.
1+1=3 right?
Maybe ringmining for valuable minerals?! Find your R64:s in the ring-belts? ;-)
|

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:53:00 -
[357] - Quote
The net effect of these changes seem to be nudging people to invest in local economies if they can, such as mining local ores and ice. Isotopes are still divided by regions; anyone operating an off-race capital, black-ops ship, jump freighter, or tower is going to have to import fuel. Is this something that should be changed for improving the localization of nullsec economies? |

Migui X'hyrrn
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
85
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:55:00 -
[358] - Quote
If the proposal will change after a post, then it has not been thought deeply enough. it is more like "what if..."
You want to make eve bigger and 0.0 be more self dependent, etc. Thats great. But it is the same as if you duplicate the price of the plane ticket. What happens? The poor guy can't afford it. The rich doesn't give a ****. If you downgrade the airplane speed, then the distance becomes more relevant.
Want to nerf power projection? Then say it openly and think a way so that NUMBERS is not the answer for everything. |

Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space BORG Alliance
61
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:05:00 -
[359] - Quote
Quote: 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.
I was writing in other industry related posts already that POS users seem to get shafted a bit. This here seems to be like some official acknowledgement that POSes will be baaaaaaaad after summer patch.
Why else should there be a fear that only small POSes will be left, or that so many disappear from the game, that they need to enhance the jump drive isotope consumption to keep the ice price up??
What about the new refining arrays, the compressions arrays? Won't this lead to more corps putting up a POS than before, even if it is only a small one? Shouldn't that already even out things?
If not... maybe it is the POS mechanics that needs some bad upgrades, instead of making the jump fuel more expensive?
This seems to be a huge step into the wrong direction. Killing all the small alliances, small corps that may have trouble in the long run with those increased prices. Mining it themself in nullsec may not be an option.. not everyone holds systems that offer ice, and even if they do, it may not be said that it offers the right isotopes. Players like to fly all sort of ships, so the "work for your own isotopes in your own nullsec" argument seems to be a big fail - unless you plan on adding all 4 empire istopes to every ice belt in the game. |

WhiteSleeve
Poor Old Ornery nOObs Brothers of Tangra
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:11:00 -
[360] - Quote
Resgo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Resgo wrote:Rather than increasing the size of fuel bays, why not cut the volume of the isotyopes by a third. Then it would carry through all of your systems using the isotopes at fuel. It wouldn't have an impact on POSes as POSes consume fuel blocks that would stay the same size. At first glance this appears to be an excellent idea. Though if you'd like to increase the size of the fuel bay on top of it, it'd be much appreciated. My fleet hangar always seems to be full of fuel due to the fuel bay being undersized to begin with.
So far I've been going through these and the thought that keeps occurring to me is this. Fuel bays should increase to match the increase in fuel requirements to complete a jump. Reducing the volume of isotopes seems to be half of the solution. Whether people carry more fuel in other parts of their ships can be revisited I'm sure. As far as the key to this being people keeping up the Ice demand because of POS fuels, why not just increase the isotope requirement for fuel blocks instead of going after capitals in this fashion? The idea that because people will use fewer isotopes because they'll use smaller towers so lets make it so that jump capable ships need more fuel to travel.... To quote a dinosaur from one of my children's favorite movies "I don't think this plan was thought through very well". This also does not address the issues of having ships that use fuels that are unavailable in their parts of space. Such as Any race other than the area that you live. So if you want to increase competition, I've seen suggestions for making the 0.0 belts larger, having them have a greater variety of ice (You've got the major type for that area of space, and then why wouldn't there be smaller amounts of all types in those areas? maybe you don't get the good stuff for 0.0 ice in an out of area belt but the stuff found in hi sec) for a given belt. I'll admit I may be missing something. But that's my first thought. At least increasing the requirements for fuel blocks would make some sort of sense with the changes coming from industry (factory or research POS module changes requiring more isotopes of whatever type to produce the happy glow lights that they need to run off of those pos's or whatever). This sounds like this should be a POS related change, not a Capital related change. And if you're going to go through all of that, why aren't Jump Freighters given the Ability to jump farther if you're going to nerf their fuel costs, at least you should give them some longer legs in the process. A little give with the take, as it were. |
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |