| 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) |
Ammzi
Love Squad
Pasta Syndicate
1737
   |
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:39:00 -
[181] - Quote
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.
Welp. CCP just got out-smarted.
|
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
218
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:40:00 -
[182] - Quote
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.
Please don't burst Fozzie's delusion-bubble by pointing out the contradictory changes being made. |
Needmore Longcat
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
84
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:41:00 -
[183] - Quote
Implying this entire thing isn't a joke. |
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:42:00 -
[184] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.
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 any argument 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. |
Marketing Chairman Stalin
Space Marketing Department
GoonSwarm
42
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:42:00 -
[185] - Quote
Ammzi 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. Welp. CCP just got out-smarted.
|
Dimitri Forgroth
Dark Destiny Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:43:00 -
[186] - Quote
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.
Basically this. This is an easy to make change in the future if ice prices do start to drop from fewer POSes being run, but postcognition is significantly more reliable than precognition. |
Current Habit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:43:00 -
[187] - Quote
Ammzi 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. Welp. CCP just got out-smarted.
again |
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Nulli Secunda
305
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:44:00 -
[188] - Quote
If we believe that the consumption amount influences usage frequence, wouldn't it make more sense to decrease the amount so that more capitals jump more often? More capitals jumping around means more get caught. A docked capital never gets blown up. |
Aareya
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:44:00 -
[189] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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 is often a dream of high sec corporations to place a POS in high sec. The standings requirements restrict these many new high sec corporations from doing so. The summer expansion will remove this obstacle allowing every new high sec corporation to erect their own high sec POS.
What happens if the influx of new POS towers offsets or exceeds the expected reduction in size of high sec POS towers? With an increased demand of isotopes (driven by an increase demand of fuel blocks), wouldn't this change further impact the isotope market? |
Marketing Chairman Stalin
Space Marketing Department
GoonSwarm
42
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:45:00 -
[190] - Quote
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
|
|
|
Needmore Longcat
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
85
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:47:00 -
[191] - Quote
Oh. One other thing, that I find absolutely astonishing. You changed your mind literally 10 minutes into the thread, which raises a very important question:
Actually how much prior thought and planning has gone into this?
|
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad
Pasta Syndicate
70
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:48:00 -
[192] - Quote
Marketing Chairman Stalin wrote:L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
L
A
S
A
R
B
O
N
G
H
I
T
S
same
. |
MissBolyai
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:49:00 -
[193] - Quote
Ok, Fozzinator... I declare a truce. And I think it's time to be quasi-constructive to you.
You have a great history of making thoughtful and impactful game decisions (tech nerf, pirate ships etc etc). One of your forte's has always been the combination of your extensive game knowledge with your ability to see the big picture and the long term impacts of any proposed changes. You have also, historically, done a great job at explaining your thought process in the dev blogs of any of these changes.
Today's announcement just feels a little more whimsical than we've grown to expect from you. Instead of "I am changing X because of Y," you've given us "well, how about this?" I'm sure there are a lot of reasons behind your proposal that I (and the other 99% of the posters here) don't understand/haven't thought of... but just from my chair, it seems like you haven't either. And I only say that because you typically have laid a much stronger groundwork than you did here (as evidenced by the fact that you implemented a suggested change within the first 30 minutes of the thread being up). Not that the timing of Resgo's suggestion negates its validity, but I would contend that if you're taking the first suggestions that come in, you may not have thought it out very thoroughly.
Or, maybe you have a good idea of where you want to go, and you're a step ahead and using the community to help vet your idea... in which case, that's an impressive meta game. |
Migui X'hyrrn
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
79
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:50:00 -
[194] - Quote
Needmore Longcat wrote:Oh. One other thing, that I find absolutely astonishing. You changed your mind literally 10 minutes into the thread, which raises a very important question:
Actually how much prior thought and planning has gone into this?
I can imagine Fozzie and Rise eating together today and Rise laughing evily "You don't dare to post about..."
Thats they only way I can imagine this. Because two seconds of thoughts discard this as a good idea. |
Cpt Ghost
Sea Hamster Legionnaires
The Unthinkables
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:51:00 -
[195] - Quote
Didn't read a single argument in this thread explaining why doing JF runs should be more expensive..
Can someone enlighten me please, cause so far I just think it's ****.
In my eyes it looks like CCP continues to suck all the joy out of this game.
 |
Lady Isabell
S.A.S
Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:51:00 -
[196] - Quote
Needmore Longcat wrote:Oh. One other thing, that I find absolutely astonishing. You changed your mind literally 10 minutes into the thread, which raises a very important question:
Actually how much prior thought and planning has gone into this?
I'm sure they are wonder what this "thought and planning" you speak of is so here is what Wikipedia has to say about it:
Planning (also called forethought) is the process of thinking about and organizing the activities required to achieve a desired goal.
Planning involves the creation and maintenance of a plan. As such, planning is a fundamental property of intelligent behavior. This thought process is essential to the creation and refinement of a plan, or integration of it with other plans; that is, it combines forecasting of developments with the preparation of scenarios of how to react to them.
An important, albeit often ignored aspect of planning, is the relationship it holds with forecasting. Forecasting can be described as predicting what the future will look like, whereas planning predicts what the future should look like.[1] The counterpart to planning is spontaneous order. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
Tactical Narcotics Team
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:53:00 -
[197] - Quote
For all of you crowing that this will have any effect whatsoever on force projection, you're just wrong. Cost isn't an issue. Not for the groups you are worried about showing up on your doorstep with capitals. But it is a nice subsidy to the corn growers in the midwest, I mean, AFK ice bots in Empire.
Perhaps they should have seen what the effects actually become on isotope use related to starbases before creating this new social welfare program. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
602
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:53:00 -
[198] - Quote
I think Fozzie's board room meetings to discuss changes consists of him sitting in front of a mirror.
This one change just nerfed all of the bonus's you gave null sec industry.
jack1974 > can still call me zeus :) if you want
Danalee > Jack is more humble :) |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
Test Alliance Please Ignore
650
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:53:00 -
[199] - Quote
So jumps/portals will require 50% more fuel, but bays will hold 3x more. 1.5/3 = .5. ***** about to get expensive, yo. But less refueling required.
Buy isotopes.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
26
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:53:00 -
[200] - Quote
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.
Hehe. Pretty much to the point.
I am making serious preparations for a demand spike in POS parts. Everyone and his mom will instantly want to drop a POS somewhere when this hits TQ.
In addition, Ytterbium tells us that POSes use 5% less materials on all manufacturing jobs.
The question ofc is: what happens in the long run? After the initial rush, how many POSes will be operated?
If manufacturing in a POS becomes mandatory to be competitive due to the material bonus, you will see a much larger number of smaller POSes.
You should rather get that "multiple lab/assembly benefit question" right then you would not need to worry about people downgrading POSes... |
|
|
Berluth Luthian
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
187
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:54:00 -
[201] - Quote
What if fuel cost was a little more logarithmically tied to distance jumped?
Boost all jump ranges by 10-25%
Reduce jump fuel volume by 50-75%
Scale jump fuel cost by balancing efficiency of distance so that...
Jumping about 25% of current ranges is actually about 10% cheaper than now.
Jumping about 50% of current range is about 10% more expensive than now.
Jumping 100% of current range is 100% more expensive than now.
Jumping 125% of current range is 250% more expensive than now.
The trade-off would be shorter cyno chains for maximum fuel efficiency or longer jumps for max speed and security? |
Boogalo
Space Exploitation Inc
Get Off My Lawn
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:57:00 -
[202] - Quote
This thread is still more readable than reddit. |
Meandering Milieu
House Aratus
Fatal Ascension
44
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:57:00 -
[203] - Quote
Posting in a stealth "nerf power projection" thread.
Power projection and hull tanking, Fozzie is on a roll and I like it. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3003
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:58:00 -
[204] - Quote
Locked for a quick cleaning.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department |
|
MissBolyai
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
103
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:26:00 -
[205] - Quote
Thanks for clearing those scrub posts... Now fozzie can focus on my post :) |
Shonion
FREE GATES
Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:27:00 -
[206] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.
Wouldn't be better to wait till one change takes effect then change another thing. I simply not beleive that this change will effect isotope usage that much, because ppl will put up other towers in high sec, maybe not for runing research or manufacturing jobs, but for run compression modules for their miners. Even that, the demand of isotopes already pushed the prices up, because that well planned. This going to skyrocket it.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
After CCP nerfed ice mining at all with limits (witch not definetly bad), then you expect with the summer changes to force ppl to build up industry and market in 0.0 you instantly hit it with heavily increasing the transporting costs. You should know that 0.0 regions don't have everything in local to run any decent manufacturing, build T2 or just live there, you have to import several materials for example 3 of 4 isotopes usually. Regions has limited resources, some kind of moons are not exist in several regions.
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
Its just simply makes the newbros life harder, market more expensive and industry less profitable in 0.0.
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
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.
If its about nerfing force projections, then some other ideas would be much better then this. Simply reduce jump ranges or give a cooldown to jump drives, but this is only impact prices and eve slowly forced to a hyperinflation when lot of ppl just get off and go play something else. Changing shipbalance can make a few bad nights for some ppl, but changing the economy to wrong way, can collapse the game.
Actually agree with MissBolyai, at this point i have no idea what is the motivation of this announcement.
But we will have shiny skins, yaaay... -.- |
Zomgnomnom
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
Mordus Angels
29
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:28:00 -
[207] - Quote
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.
THIS.
|
David Magnus
296
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:28:00 -
[208] - Quote
Wow, where did all that useful data go?
I wasn't done copying it into Excel :(
http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/fight-us-maybe
http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate
http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps
http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion |
Lyn Fel
Black Frog Logistics
Red-Frog
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:30:00 -
[209] - Quote
This is unfortunate news and we will likely see an increase in Black Frog pricing this summer as a result to compensate. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises
StarFleet.
171
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:31:00 -
[210] - Quote
Stimulating Iso and Competitiveness:
Reduce the Heavy water output of the 3 non isotope ice blocks, specifically nerf Dark Glitter (more profitable than Ore). No one mines the Isotope ore in null BECAUSE IT IS CHEAP.
"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."
No, it wont. Not at all. It will hurt smaller groups but larger ones wont give a ****. If they are moving capitals then they should expect to lose one or two. that is EVERYTHING compared to the cost of moving them. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |