| 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) |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
202
   |
Posted - 2014.05.06 22:37:00 -
[631] - Quote
Pyrasanth wrote:I started to research the effect of rising fuel prices on an economy & the effects can be staggering & quite far reaching. This is one of the many topics on the internet that I found Rising fuel price effects on an economyMy concern is that 50% is such a massive fuel price hike that it has a serious risk of destabilizing the Eve economy. Manufacturing is one of the core hinge pins in the stability of any economy and frankly this change, as echoed by many, is ill thought out and potentially very damaging. Any price increases should be very carefully applied and monitored- 50% increase is as much thought out as playing sticking the tail on a donkey blind folded and hoping you got it in the right place. 
CCP obviously aren't economists or this would never have gone past the "idea" stage.
There is never going to be enough capital ship movements to consume the excess topes if people just start pulling down pos's. Which is really not likely to happen the way CCP predicts - Most of the existing pos will adapt to the changes by adding compression and processing mods - New pos's will go up for compression and refining mods. The removal of standing requirements will see pos's go up and down as the need arises (mobile mining gangs and the like)
---
If Devs predictions are right;
1 large pos uses 385k isotopes per week, if as CCP has predicted and hundreds of Pos's are removed due to their changes to industry then it is those who live in Nulsec will pay the cost for the oversupply of Isotopes created by CCP.
If on the other hand isotope prices take a dive due to oversupply - The mining industry takes a massive hit on income, making it once again less desirable as a profession.
---
Increasing the cost to move things via JF directly impacts on players living in Nul. Most JF services charge either directly to customer or by adding it to the items they put on the market.
Industry in Nulsec will never and can never produce enough to keep up with supply / demand and even if it could, there is still a 50% CCP surcharge to be added to the cost of every item sold.
Nulsec is not like Empire where you just fly on over to your local trade hub and pick up what you need, it is vast often unprotected space where you may need to go through numerous jump bridges and gates to get to the nearest blue station to buy what you need.
Whether produced in Nulsec or brought from Jita, everything needs to be moved by JF at some point - CCP just put a 50% fuel surcharge on EVERY item in game for those living in Nulsec. (If the American president tried something like that he would soon find himself out of a job)
---
CCP just added a massive nerf to Nulsec Pvp - Smaller groups will be forced to spend more time doing Pve to pay for everything. While those with isk (nulblocks) have little to worry about; - as long as shooting miners and anom runners is all you want to do.
Yes it is fun going into someones renter space and shooting up a bunch of indy ships and shiny Pve boats but if it is to become the main focus of nulsec Pvp due to upcoming indy changes - the fun factor will soon diminish along with the amount of people you have to go shoot at. |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
139
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 04:25:00 -
[632] - Quote
Elzon1 wrote:Cardano Firesnake wrote:
I love the idea of a fleet of freighters warping to a pos where a Titan is waiting and get bubbled @ 350km of the pos by a sabre who uncloaked.
Or perharps a Titan who is lighting a bridge near a station surronded by a fleet of Freighters could see a frigate un cloacking next to him and open a cyno... Heavy dictors everywhere and a Titan who cannot go anywhere.
If it is true it is cheaper to use a Titan Bridge the risk is quite bigger though for the Freighters or for the Titan...
You put the Titan in a low sec system next to high sec. You bring the freighters into system (with scouts and maybe a small gang for protection). Then you bring the freighters to the Titan in a POS and jump bridge the freighters out to a secure nullsec system destination. In low sec you can't use bubbles you see and the Titan will be safe within the shield of a POS. If your destination is secured it's a fairly low risk operation so long as you're being careful and smart about it.
And to come back? There will be a time where your freighters will have to warp to the Titan in his POS in Null Sec.
If Hostile know you use this system for Logi an AFK cloaky will be there 24/24 until the day he will open the bubble...
But of course AFK cloakers are not dangerous!
Well if you stay in Low Sec the risk is lower.... |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
139
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 04:45:00 -
[633] - Quote
It is true that larger alliances with good logistics and people able to mine / product directly in low/null sec will feel less this change than lone guys that have to buy everything in JITA and transport it into low sec.
I hope the tech 2 indus will be able to help for that.
In fact transport ships with large cargo and able to pass trough gate camps is a necesity. Transport ship should pop 50km fom gates when they jump... ;-) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
9872
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 10:43:00 -
[634] - Quote
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.
I just got back to work after a bit of post-fanfest death plague recovery. I'm working through a bunch of threads to catch up on what was discussed over Fanfest and the last two days.
I've fully caught up on this thread now (and I also had some excellent conversations with players at Fanfest about these issues) and we'll be considering and discussing this proposal a bit more. I also want a chance to chat with the new CSM about it once we get them all under NDA.
Just a quick note about the change to the proposal surrounding isotope volume. Don't mistake my willingness to embrace a good improvement to the implementation as a sign that we have not thought through the core intent of this change. It's not unusual for excellent improvements to implementation to come from the community, as more eyes on a problem generally brings better suggestions. Where some companies would reject such an improvement just to appear stronger or more decisive, we're very proud of our willingness to embrace player ideas.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
KwarK uK
Strontless Mistakes
Fatal Ascension
82
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 11:45:00 -
[635] - Quote
Can we get a larger cargo bay on blops rolled into this to help them adapt to the increased consumption? Long overdue imo, especially given that some blops see less use than others due to cargo limitations. They should all have at least 1k base cargo.
You should vote for KwarK for a lowsec presence on CSM8. It's a good idea. I'd do it!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=213851 |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
531
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:38:00 -
[636] - Quote
I just thought of another side effect of changing isotope volumes -- Titans currently use their racial isotopes as fuel for their Doomsday weapons. Will doomsday weapon fuel consumption also see an increase in their tope usage commensurate with the volume reduction being planned?
During the battle of B-R, tope consumption due to doomsdays became a significant factor after several hours, and many titans had to jump out to refuel. Not increasing the usage will allow them to have a longer operational period, should such a slugfest ever occur again.
This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Inquisitor Tyr
Phantom Squad
DARKNESS.
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 19:10:00 -
[637] - Quote
1) Doubling the isotope useage and reducing its size by only 1/3 is effectively nerfing the range on capital ships. In essence, all you are doing is making the logistic work harder, forcing people to spend more time moving stuff around space and less time in combat.
2) The alliances are not going to stop moving fleets across the universe. In most corporations, there is 1 major player who is a hero logistics guy and supports the rest of the players with logistic support. As the need will always be there, someone will always fill the role. That person frequently gets burned out and stops playing. I've seen it happen dozens of times in several corps. If you continue to make changes that increase the work of logistics teams, you are just going to burn out your longest serving highly contributing players faster. Seriously, I've seen these guys loose marriages over eve.
3) You are effectively limiting Capital ships maximum range before running out of fuel. This helps solidify the deepest space of the major power blocs rather than leaving the core areas vulnerable. The effect is, this helps solidify the existing empires rather than shake things up; and a shake up is what everyone in nullsec keeps screaming for.
4) You overestimate the affect the slots changes will have on POS usage. The majority of towers are in nullsec, and the majority of those towers are used for moon material extraction and reactions. Very few use them for manufacturing, and labs are the exception and not the rule. You will definitely see less towers in empire; but increasing the cost of running them is certainly not going to cause more people to set them up.
Its a free market economy, leave the players to deal with the relative prices of things. Every time you get involved in the economy (think drone mineral nerf, etc) you cause ramifications that you aren't considering (the major imbalance it created on nullsec vs highsec ore isk/hour ratios, which you later patched by buffing nullsec ores) because the game is too complex to see all ends. A preemptive move on something that might not happen isn't going to help. Introduce the fuel change in a later patch - take a look and see what happens with the tope market after the slot changes first.
In the mean time, market speculation is driving tope prices sky high. Youll have to wait a couple months for the reserves to dwindle before you can look closely at it. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 19:19:00 -
[638] - Quote
Inquisitor Tyr wrote:1) Doubling the isotope useage and reducing its size by only 1/3 is effectively nerfing the range on capital ships. In essence, all you are doing is making the logistic work harder, forcing people to spend more time moving stuff around space and less time in combat.
Your math is wrong. The math is such that the range on capital ships on a full tank of isotopes does not change.
Before, isotopes were 0.15 m^3.
After, isotopes are 0.10 m^3.
This is a 33% decrease in volume.
Before, a jump takes 1000 topes. The volume is 0.15 m^3 per tope. The total volume of isotopes consumed is 150 m^3.
After, the same jump takes 1500 topes. The volume is 0.1 m^3 per tope. The total volume of isotopes consumed is 150 m^3.
This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA
C0VEN
396
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 11:44:00 -
[639] - Quote
Moving goods in JF will be cheaper , if this JF will cargo expanding rigs.
Take into consideration that when you put T2 Rigs , it can go beyond 500k m3 from the current 350k3.
What more all super capitals should have fuel consumption increased , and based on their mass
Currently :
(all V)
Thanathos / Nyx / Erberus jumping 1Ly consumes around 500 isotopes.
Their base mass is :
Thanathos: 1,163,250,000 kg ; ~0.43 isotope per 1000t/LY
Nyx: 1,615,625,000 kg ; ~0.31 isotope per 1000t/LY
Erebus: 2,379,370,000 kg ; ~0.21 isotope per tone/LY
So the bigger ship the less isotopes needed to move it.
If we just assume that we keep result from thanathos and scale it up for this 1 lY:
Then ships will burn:
Nyx: ~694 isotopers
Erebus: ~1023 isotopes
Still from my perspective, the bigger ship, the more fuel it should use so lets use safely 20% more of fuel consumption based on class, and rounding it down to keep calculation simple:
Carriers/dreads : ~ 500 isotopes per LY
Motherships : ~ 800 isotopes per LY
Titans : ~ 1400 isotopes per LY
This is more realistic, the bigger ship, the bigger mass - the more fuel you have to use it to move id across the space.
Now lets apply 50% more fuel
Carriers/dreads : ~ 750 isotopes per LY
Motherships : ~ 1200 isotopes per LY
Titans : ~ 2100 isotopes per LY
Of course in case of the Supercarriers and titans , small tweak to fuel bays will be needed.
This way isotopes will be burned, and we will not have supercapital fleets roaming from one edge of the eve to another , few times a day.
Summer 2014 - Carrier Split
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
543
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:58:00 -
[640] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Moving goods in JF will be cheaper , if this JF will cargo expanding rigs.
This is predicated on JFs and freighters not taking a cargo bay nerf to partially or completely compensate for the rigs, which I feel is extremely likely (but as of yet unconfirmed.)
This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
Test Alliance Please Ignore
673
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 15:07:00 -
[641] - Quote
Rayana Darine wrote:This sounds like Obamacare already.
As opposed to the no care you would get from a conservative gov't because too expensive can't afford it? Stop reading the tabloids.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Elzon1
Shadow Boys Corp
178
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 08:21:00 -
[642] - Quote
Cardano Firesnake wrote:And to come back? There will be a time where your freighters will have to warp to the Titan in his POS in Null Sec.
If Hostile know you use this system for Logi an AFK cloaky will be there 24/24 until the day he will open the bubble...
But of course AFK cloakers are not dangerous!
Well if you stay in Low Sec the risk is lower....
There is always the option of having a defense fleet when doing larger logistics ops.
Logistic ops of this nature are on the rarer side as people usually like to transport their things by way of carrier in between nullsec systems. Carriers have a greater tank and still have good range, but of course they aren't the most isk efficient means of doing so.
In terms of day to day operations most people would use carriers or jump freighters to move thing around in nullsec itself.
My main point is that the titan based jump portal is a bit too efficient compared to all other methods transport in nullsec.
|
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA
C0VEN
396
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 13:35:00 -
[643] - Quote
Linking mass of the ship to fuel consumption to the ship mass will also be nice.
Shield ships burning less fuel than armor ones.
Moving titan from one system to another should burn more fuel than using a carrier , that is way, way , way more smaller.
Summer 2014 - Carrier Split
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
701
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:00:00 -
[644] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Where some companies would reject such an improvement just to appear stronger or more decisive, we're very proud of our willingness to embrace player ideas.
Excellent news....so you will not be going ahead with this dumb idea then ?
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
574
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:31:00 -
[645] - Quote
Kern Walzky wrote:its a dam shame that all Capitals now get a nerf... increase in fuel consumtion is ok, but you really need to be able to carry the amount required to jump as before.
i vote for bigger Fuel bays !!!
I think the change in isotope size was meant to counteract that. So with the new values your traveling range is the same as before. |
Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 08:02:00 -
[646] - Quote
Or... You could fix POSes to still be viable in highsec this expansion, and not have to frontload the cost to other parties, in hopes of not completely destroying the ice market. Just saying..
Because you know when you finally do find a reason for POSes to be maintained in highsec 24/7 like they are now, you are not going to roll back these changes and these parties will be stuck with the bill, forever. |
Arkon Olacar
Imperial Guardians
Spaceship Samurai
344
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 18:10:00 -
[647] - Quote
Hey if Riot could poach Fozzie that would be really ******* appreciated
Ideally before he comes up with more ******** **** like this
Warping to zero |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
771
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 18:31:00 -
[648] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Linking mass of the ship to fuel consumption to the ship mass will also be nice.
Shield ships burning less fuel than armor ones.
Moving titan from one system to another should burn more fuel than using a carrier , that is way, way , way more smaller.
It's 18% lighter. 1.1bn vs 1.3 bn
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Elequent-Lady Dolorous
Marchwarden
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 19:31:00 -
[649] - Quote
Can we have fuel conservation rigs please?
Yes, the "e" was intentional.-á |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate
Caldari State
173
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 20:36:00 -
[650] - Quote
After stepping back and reviewing the intention behind most of these dev posts about coming industry changes, I believe most of these are focused on encouraging smaller grass roots indy corps to help flourish a little more in high and low to provide better market variety and distribution.
Whether or not this actually will achieve that goal remains to be seen, since I'm withholding judgement until the freighter/JF thread gets posted. |
HuGo87
Perimeter Defense Systems
Templis CALSF
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 06:37:00 -
[651] - Quote
If the idea is to avoid huge fleets being moved that often (as initially described) then:
- Jump freighters should be unaffected. They're not part of "huge fleets", and this change would affect then negatively a lot. If would negatively affect lowsec dwellers and FW as well.
- Increase the fuel cost those cyno generator arrays, which tend to be used more by larger alliances AFAIK.
- Increase the fuel cost of larger capitals (eg: titans) more than that of the smaller ones (carriers? dreads?
|
sabastyian
Death By Design
Did he say Jump
22
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 15:52:00 -
[652] - Quote
So with the next expansion looming with terrible ideas such as this and mountains of player feedback, have the devs even responded or looked at these threads since posting them, picking one thing and going "we used feedback, see?" If not, why bother posting these threads? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
9969
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 18:40:00 -
[653] - Quote
Hey everyone.
As mentioned in this dev blog, we are shifting the release of the industry changes back to the Cirius release on July 22nd in order to ensure that we have time to incorporate all of your feedback and have extended testing on SISI.
Since this change is so closely tied with the industry updates, we are also going to hold off on it for the time being. We will not change the isotope consumption in Kronos, and we will continue to discuss and evaluate our plan with the next potential release window being Cirius on July 22nd.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
9969
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 18:40:00 -
[654] - Quote
Querns wrote:I just thought of another side effect of changing isotope volumes -- Titans currently use their racial isotopes as fuel for their Doomsday weapons. Will doomsday weapon fuel consumption also see an increase in their tope usage commensurate with the volume reduction being planned?
During the battle of B-R, tope consumption due to doomsdays became a significant factor after several hours, and many titans had to jump out to refuel. Not increasing the usage will allow them to have a longer operational period, should such a slugfest ever occur again.
We will be giving doomsday isotope consumption some thought and bringing it up with the CSM, thanks.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger
Nulli Secunda
54
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 18:57:00 -
[655] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. As mentioned in this dev blog, we are shifting the release of the industry changes back to the Cirius release on July 22nd in order to ensure that we have time to incorporate all of your feedback and have extended testing on SISI. Since this change is so closely tied with the industry updates, we are also going to hold off on it for the time being. We will not change the isotope consumption in Kronos, and we will continue to discuss and evaluate our plan with the next potential release window being Cirius on July 22nd.
I'd suggest you take a wait and see approach to isotope production and consumption post industry expansion release anyway.
You are essentially doing premature optimization. You are trying to counteract something based on a hypothesis that might turn out to be completely false, while several dozen variables change at the same time. If your hypothesis is right, you can react in a timely manner since you have the data to see through speculative price bubbles and the processes to react timely. If you are wrong, the worst case scenario is demand outstripping the hard capped production capabilities of empire space and creating a t2 industry crash and heavy decrease in QOL in all space that depends on the empire lifeline for supplies. Have a look at the stocks in jita. Nitrogen will sell out FAST. And there is no capability for local production for alliances beyond the racial fuel type while game balance for capitals heavily favors a few distinct doctrines.
Basically, if I am wrong and isotope consumption does decrease a lot, the worst that happens is a decrease in fuel costs spurring industry activity and lowering prices in 0.0 market hubs and for t2 items in empire, while some ice miners transition to mining ore.
If you are wrong, prices for fuel could spiral out of control due to limited supply ever since the ice belt change, which will ripple though and make deep 0.0 even more of a shithole than it is now and raising prices for t2 gear, the established standard for being competitive in pvp. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
499
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 19:58:00 -
[656] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. As mentioned in this dev blog, we are shifting the release of the industry changes back to the Crius release on July 22nd i
And so the feature creep begins. |
Petrus Blackshell
Derelict Rifter Enterprise
3145
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 20:01:00 -
[657] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. As mentioned in this dev blog, we are shifting the release of the industry changes back to the Crius release on July 22nd i And so the feature creep begins.
That's not what feature creep means.
Rifterlings - newbie-friendly swashbuckling corp ("weflyrifters" in-game channel). Join today! www.rifterlings.com
Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com |
Shivanthar
Thrilling Institution of TaTas
Permanent Mental Syndrome
70
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 06:02:00 -
[658] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit:
...
We will not change the isotope consumption in Kronos, and we will continue to discuss ...
:Edit:
Yay! Marauders that can jump finally! There is ship, there is cargo, you guys really giving more and more tools for Marauders and encouraging them to go low-null every other thay 
Btw, why only Kronos? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
3595
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 06:11:00 -
[659] - Quote
Shivanthar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit:
...
We will not change the isotope consumption in Kronos, and we will continue to discuss ...
:Edit:
Yay! Marauders that can jump finally! There is the ship, there is the cargo space more than enough. You guys really giving more and more tools for Marauders and encouraging them to go low-null every other thay Btw, why only Kronos? (  )
/doublefacepalm |
Edwin McAlister
Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC
25
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 07:00:00 -
[660] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::
aThe goals of this change are:
[list] 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.
As an industrialist, and discussion with ffriends, i feel i must disagree with this...
The proposed changes with industry, several of us that had small towers, will be upgradeing those towers to mediums (or larges)..
the need to defend our assets being the primary reason, the cost of the increased fuel requirement will just be passed on to the buyer of the end product / goods. |
| |
|
| 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 |