| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1220
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
lol
The easy, safe and rapid transport of large volumes of materials is one of the reasons why we have a single big hub. It's too easy to just move everything to Jita. Brave changes. |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1231
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mag's wrote:This link is meant to prove what exactly?
I believe it's meant to prove that freighters are entirely safe in 0.7 sec and higher. |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1231
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing.
The weird thing is that they're too blind to see that the things they always want - safer, quicker hauling of greater volumes - are directly damaging to their own profession.
The main result of highsec freighters is to allow people to congregate together in fewer, bigger hubs, bringing more and more industrialists into competition with each other, damaging their own profit margins.
Ban freighters from highsec entirely. Let Jita die. Let new minor hubs based on local industry spring up. Let reduced competition increase profit margins and open niches for new industrialists. |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1233
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 12:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:My alts fly Charons and Rheas and generally I think this is a good step in the right direction. However, this mish mash with the low CPU and role bonus towards Bulkheads is really a poor design decision, motivated by laziness. You are frightened of the maths involved and the permentations in allowing a Damage Control to be fitted aren't you?
Grasp the nettle and do it. Just give a decent CPU upgrade and forget the role bonus. Eve is meant to be a sandbox, let people fit what they want to fit in the lows. Don't be frightened of the whiners. Sure the suicide gankers are going to whine that it is another carebear buff. While the carebears are going to whine that they can't AFK haul. Nerf the hull HP some more if you want, but give people some real variety options.
Yeah I'd have just done this. The great thing about the DC is its active nature. If you balance around HP with a DC active, then anyone APing around will have theirs off and hence be very vulnerable.
Which is fine. If they're empty, this is no big deal, as they're not going to get ganked - although they may get assassinated, meaning that they've been specifically targeted as a pilot. If they're APing with valuable cargo with DC off, then they deserve everything they get.
CCP may have thought that the difference in EHP between DC on and off was just too great though. Or is the risk of scripts to auto-activate the DC too great? |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1233
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 13:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I think they took into account that these ships are flown the way they are precisely because the pilot does not want to be paying continuous attention to it. Those people would be dying in droves.
Nevermind that, for the people who are paying attention, it would render functional invicibility. Those people would never die.
Neither of those two outcomes is desirable.
Yeah, I guess the difference between DC and no DC is just too much. Oh well.  |

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1234
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 13:52:00 -
[6] - Quote
Easier, safer and quicker movement of large amounts of materials across highsec is not good for the game. The thrust of the second edition is good, it should just be toned down a bit. |
| |
|