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.

I don't even know how this is supposed to stop power projection in the slightest but I know it will make life as a solo/small group nomadic player more expensive, as for effecting larger alliances well, who is making these changes?

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 increasing the localization of nullsec economies?

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? ;-)

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? ;-)

how should i know how jump bridges work u took our fuckin sov

It probably doesn't, the bigger alliances out there can probably absorb the costs and some (if not most) usually do fuel repayment for alliance sponsored operations. Definitely makes it more expensive for them but its not as if they are struggling.

What it does it hit is the smaller members of the coalitions, renters and smaller independent alliances who need to run logistics potentially to areas like Branch, Cobalt Edge or some other far off land. I can also see it hitting the indy guys who build out in low sec (caps etc) who JF stuff around.

I know for the last few years CCP have said they want to try and push more indy out into Low and Null but buggering around with compression and fuel seems to be going the opposite way.

Are you aware that this is very close to making fuel blocks questionable?
Currently it takes 217.6m-¦ of materials to make 40 fuel blocks which have a total volume of 200m-¦.
60m-¦ thereof are isotopes which means you are here cutting the bill of materials by 20m-¦.

Instead of compressing the stuff, you are now inflating it a tiny bit (197.6m-¦->200m-¦).
Especially when Jump Freighter transports get more expensive, fuel blocks should be SMALLER than their components - otherwise people would just transport the materials and then assemble the fuel blocks at the destination (which would pretty much defeat the original purpose why fuel blocks were invented in the first place).

While I think this proposed change will not outweigh the convenience factor yet, it will definitely incentivize local PI and fuel block production (especially in combination with the announced 5% material bonus in starbases).
Still people's own decision, but players who want to play "optimal" may feel the need to return to the messy pre-fuel-block-situation in terms of handling stuff PLUS the extra step of fuel block creation.

Still waiting on someone from the likes of Mordus Angels, Dirt Nap Squad, IRED, Triumvirate, Sev3rance etc to weigh in on how this change will effect their small alliance.

I think we've heard enough from the CFC how much the small alliances they care about so very very much will suffer.

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.

Less blopsing? Win in my books as someone who is in a blops hotspot. How many bombers could be blopsed in and out before and how many after?

This is bad news for blackops. It is already expensive to bridge as it is, moreover the limit on how many recons you can bridge because of cost/fuel bay space problems.

I hope this is just the beginning of the power projection nerf.

Look at all the "Blue Donut" members whining already.

why are you trying to make this game into a "grind for isk simulator"?

some of us have real lives and jobs and can't sit on eve grinding all day long

I bet if I went back, I could find a thread where people complained that nerfing technetium would completely ruin the little guy

LOL THIS IS ONE OF THE DUDES WE'RE BLOPSING ALL THE TIME