Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Rammix
TheMurk
297
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 17:20:00 -
[301] - Quote
Skalle Pande wrote: Lovely. Ganker tears. "Boo-hooo, the POS can shoot back, CCP, make it so that carebears always lose, it's not fair that they might not lose.". Keep it coming, it is wonderful.
What you are really saing is "I want easy kills, not hard ones". Well, what kind of EVE pilot are you, then? Can't stand a risk? In that case go find some other li'l ol' lady and whack her from behind. If you want a fight, come get a fight.
Blabla.
You're not very clever, right? Because I'm not a ganker. Never suicide killed anyone and never killed anyone in a HS war (if even have taken part in one, at all). Not sure if I even have a killmail in highsec.
Yet, I insist that carebears must suffer (in terms of safety, only). Doesn't matter if I'm a carebear myself ATM or not. If I get killed ratting in highsec - so be it, I accept it because in such case it's up to 90% my fault.
You want pos guns? Ok, no problem, spend 20-ish days to learn Anchoring 5 + Sb.D.M. for 3-5 characters. This would mean that you're taking your pos and its security seriously. But the coming change, which will let totally casual pos users who don't even want to invest some significant time in that, to be able to easily get several pos operator alts (even up to 100% characters in a corp, like 20/20, if they wish, very quickly) - it's bull****. And not only for highsec. OpenSUSE 13.1, wine 1.7.20 Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
77
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 18:45:00 -
[302] - Quote
Rammix wrote:Skalle Pande wrote: Lovely. Ganker tears. "Boo-hooo, the POS can shoot back, CCP, make it so that carebears always lose, it's not fair that they might not lose.". Keep it coming, it is wonderful.
What you are really saing is "I want easy kills, not hard ones". Well, what kind of EVE pilot are you, then? Can't stand a risk? In that case go find some other li'l ol' lady and whack her from behind. If you want a fight, come get a fight.
Blabla. You're not very clever, right? Because I'm not a ganker. Never suicide killed anyone and never killed anyone in a HS war (if even have taken part in one, at all). Not sure if I even have a killmail in highsec. Yet, I insist that carebears must suffer (in terms of safety, only). Doesn't matter if I'm a carebear myself ATM or not. If I get killed ratting in highsec - so be it, I accept it because in such case it's up to 90% my fault. You want pos guns? Ok, no problem, spend 20-ish days to learn Anchoring 5 + Sb.D.M. for 3-5 characters. This would mean that you're taking your pos and its security seriously. But the coming change, which will let totally casual pos users who don't even want to invest some significant time in that, to be able to easily get several pos operator alts (even up to 100% characters in a corp, like 20/20, if they wish, very quickly) - it's bull****. And not only for highsec.
Execpt they lowered starbase defense to anchoring 4 already
Next arguement |
Rammix
TheMurk
298
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 20:28:00 -
[303] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: Execpt they lowered starbase defense to anchoring 4 already
Not yet. But it's unlikely that they will change their (awful) plan about that, you're right. OpenSUSE 13.1, wine 1.7.20 Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
77
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 20:49:00 -
[304] - Quote
Rammix wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote: Execpt they lowered starbase defense to anchoring 4 already
Not yet. But it's unlikely that they will change their (awful) plan about that, you're right.
Well, it has changed on sisi
It has been a change since like the day the 3rd or 4th original dev blog was released
No one has ever said anything about it negatively except "Can I haz skillpoints back"
If you are still doubting it goes live, I can't imagine what other **** you are paranoid about. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
164
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 23:14:00 -
[305] - Quote
Rammix wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:someone wrote: Timed restriction to anchor Control Towers
Newly formed corporations will need to wait 7 days before being able to anchor Starbases. This is to inhibit players from immediately moving Starbase assets to another corporation if under a war declaration. Please dont do this, we will just be forced to make a lot of 1-alt corps to hop around to to avoid wardecs in the end nothing positive will come of it but it will be a headache for us all. cowards who try to exploit their way out of wars deserve the headache This. And the main axiom of eve: carebears must suffer. If some patch lessens suffering of carebears (obviously I mean safety, not UI changes made only for comfort) - they're doing it wrong. p.s. If a carebear does not accept this as a given and can't stand any risk - he is not the Eve type.
I was wardec about 2 weeks ago, made a new corp in 5 mins. There is NO RISK get it now!!
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Maxx Run
Maxx Run Blueprint Services
26
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 01:41:00 -
[306] - Quote
Rammix wrote:[quote=Skalle Pande] Yet, I insist that carebears must suffer (in terms of safety, only). Doesn't matter if I'm a carebear myself ATM or not. If I get killed ratting in highsec - so be it, I accept it because in such case it's up to 90% my fault.
WTF are you talking about? Have you ever been in a corp war? Getting killed whilst ratting in high sec, you will accept it?
Getting killed in high sec is inexcusable. Why role over? There is no acceptable loss.
Don't be stoopid, please, other wise everyone will star going POS mad...
Yours hopefully, Maxx We sell high ME - Sub-Cap Ship, Mod, Rig and Ammo BPC's - All at great prices!
The best in the game, we were genetically engineered for this work!! |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
409
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 03:15:00 -
[307] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: I'm sure now you are just a troll, your previous post about your 12 plex per month with 1 toon and a pos was a hint. This response confirms it..
Either that or you have never used a pos and therefore have no idea how the coming changes will affect researching in one.
Average selection of ten of my top BPOs comes out to 1.4m isk/hr per line, running indefinitely since I can spread my product and not flood the markets. If someone else crashes one, two, hell all of those markets I can still tap others, and many many more at lower margins. Let's do some basic math that you are incapable of doing alone. 1.4m isk per hour per line = 14m isk per hour per character. There are 24 hours in a day. There are ~30 days in a month (plex counts for 30d anyway). That's 10.08b isk. That is 13.8 plexes at 730m each. This is not particularly difficult unless you are completely deficient at math. Hell, you don't even have to be good at math. There are programs that will do the math for you. All you have to do is put the right thing in the oven. Of course you seem too daft to even accomplish that, so I can understand how you would have difficulty earning a single plex per month. Just to further rub this in your face: Even if you are literally scraping along on ammo BPOs you can get an average of 50k per hour per line... in station slots. That's half a plex per month dumping your ammo directly onto jita and doing what is literally considered peasantry for newbie characters. You are that bad at earning money. Congratulations. PS: Do you still plan to store your entire BPO collection in a POS when you're using 1% of it? I'd like to siege you post-patch. You don't know the difference between "Researching" & "Manufacturing" ? Let me help, Manufacturing - You will have BPC's in a pos. Researching you will have BPO's in a pos. Manufacturing pos's will be no more threatened than they are now (they will also, depending on where they are, be far less profitable than they are now) Research pos, that would be one with LABS in it, will be a fine target to go after. By all means keep living in your fantasy world of 10 bil profit PM per toon . Eve needs dreamers.
lol @ being too stupid to haul BPOs to a POS. I guess this is why you can't do math, either |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
41
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 08:19:00 -
[308] - Quote
Over 90% of the expansion's projected content as given reeks, whole dynamic is ganked. Sadly I'd rather deal with the existing issues even the check boxes that sometimes do opposite of what you expect and dated interface.
So let me whip out the ole crystal ball (which is gonna be needed for every spreadsheet and planning program to function... where do you find an API to a mystical device that divines the future use at a system that could vary hour by hour and day by day?" Hmm... it shows many industrial and research types going solo, working with a corp would be too annoying not due to the corp's fault but the new and improved mechanics. Single use only (not by choice either) POSes cluttered with to dozens of the same lab or array type. A very enticing chance of misplacing prints (now where did I put the BPO is it in the office at this station maybe the station 3 systems over, maybe it is in the research POS, nope not there maybe it is in the manufacturing POS wait it isn't there either alright WTH is the print... maybe Bob has it, nah he swears he doesn't have it)
Ah savor the ever so sweet satire and not so subtle suffering of all who have to contend with this mess. Is it too late to rename the next release to Loki it seems much more in his arena?
However, not to be completely negative some things make perfect sense and couple would conditionally
- Compression Array - It has tremendous potential for all security systems
- Use prints from a container - Long over due
- New UI - needs some major tweaking but the ability to see at a glance have vs need for a job is awesome
I'm sure there are maybe 2 or so I forgot, but most of it is absurd complexity where it need not exist. Complexity for flexibility and/or process control great, otherwise sorry back to the drawing board. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Rammix
TheMurk
298
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 09:07:00 -
[309] - Quote
Maxx Run wrote:Rammix wrote:[quote=Skalle Pande] Yet, I insist that carebears must suffer (in terms of safety, only). Doesn't matter if I'm a carebear myself ATM or not. If I get killed ratting in highsec - so be it, I accept it because in such case it's up to 90% my fault. WTF are you talking about? Have you ever been in a corp war? Getting killed whilst ratting in high sec, you will accept it? Getting killed in high sec is inexcusable. Why role over? There is no acceptable loss. Don't be stoopid, please, other wise everyone will star going POS mad... Yours hopefully, Maxx You misinterpret me. I was saying that if I lose something then it's my own fault. Highsec is too safe already, so carebears should just accept some risks as a given instead of wishing for more and more safety. OpenSUSE 13.1, wine 1.7.20 Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread |
Rammix
TheMurk
298
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 09:13:00 -
[310] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Rammix wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote: Execpt they lowered starbase defense to anchoring 4 already
Not yet. But it's unlikely that they will change their (awful) plan about that, you're right. Well, it has changed on sisi It has been a change since like the day the 3rd or 4th original dev blog was released No one has ever said anything about it negatively except "Can I haz skillpoints back" If you are still doubting it goes live, I can't imagine what other **** you are paranoid about. Pos defense is getting potentially overpowered, okay, okay. It doesn't harm me, I just don't like tendencies to more safety, even the tiniest ones. Hope I made that clear now, at last.
The skillpoints, sure, I too would like to get them back.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote: There is NO RISK get it now!!
And that is BAD. OpenSUSE 13.1, wine 1.7.20 Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread |
|
Captain Davy
PRadox One Proficiency V.
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 14:36:00 -
[311] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:Why there is a need for anchoring/onlining/whatever whole bunch of arrays instead of just having single production array with configurable number of whatever it is array does right now? Wouldn't it be simpler for both devs AND players? Since you already messing around those things anyway...
Please listen to this guy! do something similar to what we have on PI. |
Captain Davy
PRadox One Proficiency V.
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 14:44:00 -
[312] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:I still stand by my opinion that the idea of having multiple arrays of the same type in a POS is a real bodge job method to give additional bonuses.
A far better idea would be to have new skill/s that have to be learnt, maybe at 10x skill time if you like, to give tax bonuses at POSes. A reply from CCP is to why this is not a better idea would be nice too.
I dont think the skill approach would be the best option but i agree with you, anchoring dozens of unessesary modules in a pos is just stupid.
i think the whay it should be handled is similar to command centers in a PI, u can just "upgrade" you array for X isk, that would increase the PG/CPU usage by Y/Z.
after "purchacing" that upgrade to a given module you could downgrade and upgrade to that same lvl instantly and for free so u can manage in a easy way that stuff. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3452
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 17:23:00 -
[313] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:where do you find an API to a mystical device that divines the future use at a system that could vary hour by hour and day by day?"
Day by day, only. And not significantly, as it's based on a 28 day moving average, which will smooth out most bumps.
(Other than teams coming online. I guess that can happen during a day. But it's not a particularly frequent action.)
Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3452
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 17:24:00 -
[314] - Quote
Captain Davy wrote:Schmata Bastanold wrote:Why there is a need for anchoring/onlining/whatever whole bunch of arrays instead of just having single production array with configurable number of whatever it is array does right now? Wouldn't it be simpler for both devs AND players? Since you already messing around those things anyway... Please listen to this guy! do something similar to what we have on PI.
'Simpler'
Bring in a bunch of new code to manage the upgrades of a new array.
Or just count the other arrays nearby.
(yes, I'm not hugely happy with the current option. But it's a starting place) Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 18:01:00 -
[315] - Quote
Coming to this discussion late, but...
If the walls between regions are starting to come down (in a VERY small way now), I could see (and would personally like) skills that are currently limited by jump range to be based on light years instead.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
164
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 20:55:00 -
[316] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:someone wrote: Timed restriction to anchor Control Towers
Newly formed corporations will need to wait 7 days before being able to anchor Starbases. This is to inhibit players from immediately moving Starbase assets to another corporation if under a war declaration. Please dont do this, we will just be forced to make a lot of 1-alt corps to hop around to to avoid wardecs in the end nothing positive will come of it but it will be a headache for us all.
Rammix wrote:This. And the main axiom of eve: carebears must suffer. If some patch lessens suffering of carebears (obviously I mean safety, not UI changes made only for comfort) - they're doing it wrong.
p.s. If a carebear does not accept this as a given and can't stand any risk - he is not the Eve type.
maldiro selkurk wrote:I was wardec about 2 weeks ago, made a new corp in 5 mins. There is NO RISK get it now!!
Rammix wrote:And that is BAD.
Thank GOD it only took you a page and a half of off-point forum blathering to finally agree with my original post, this idea is BAD and shouldnt be put into the game in its current suggested form. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
164
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 22:20:00 -
[317] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:someone wrote: Timed restriction to anchor Control Towers
Newly formed corporations will need to wait 7 days before being able to anchor Starbases. This is to inhibit players from immediately moving Starbase assets to another corporation if under a war declaration. Please dont do this, we will just be forced to make a lot of 1-alt corps to hop around to to avoid wardecs in the end nothing positive will come of it but it will be a headache for us all. cowards who try to exploit their way out of wars deserve the headache
Exploit, it's a game mechanic. Sorta like distracting the local defense forces then blasting every ship docking and undocking from Jita. (the only deference is that I accept the mechanic of burn jita while you prefer to whine about wardec hopping) Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Kickaha Neesha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 01:58:00 -
[318] - Quote
So, let me see if I understand this correctly. CCP doesn't like it when a corp has a POS that performs multiple functions, Research, Component and Module construction. So in order to be cost effective I'm going to need to spam my POS's with multiple arrays of the same type across 3 different POS's now.
CCP, can you give a list of pilot activities that you wish to curtail in the future (as you did with the datacores) so that I don't choose the wrong skillsets to learn? |
Circumstantial Evidence
130
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 22:19:00 -
[319] - Quote
As I understand it - providing a benefit to multiple arrays of the same type is an effort to preserve the value players have invested in multiple arrays already. The value obtained from multiple industry slots at a POS is difficult to equate to the value of a percentage saved on manufacture and research. But If there's no reason to have more than one array, their market values would crash as players dump extra ones. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
239
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 12:45:00 -
[320] - Quote
Brutalis Furia wrote:Coming to this discussion late, but...
CCP is buffing industry globally. they're increasing options and streamlining the process everywhere. They have even said that they're planning on looking closely at nullsec industry and its specific challenges.
So to both sides of this argument, in this thread, I say that your view is too narrow. Look at the larger picture. The larger picture - "Increasing options" yes everything will be far more complex than it currently is due to the additional options. "Streamlining" and "Increasing options" is somewhat a contradiction - Increased options is not streamlining, it creates complexity. In this case a lot of unnecessary complexity and randomness.
My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
|
Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 22:46:00 -
[321] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:"Increasing options" yes everything will be far more complex than it currently is due to the additional options. "Streamlining" and "Increasing options" is somewhat a contradiction - Increased options is not streamlining, it creates complexity. In this case a lot of unnecessary complexity and randomness.
To clarify:
CCP is streamlining increasing transparency for existing processes so they can add additional complexity via newdynamic processes.
While it may seem a fine distinction, in this case, I've yet to see random variables cited in any of the new complexities being introduced. It may seem random, but from what I see, it's a dynamic system based on ever changing player actions - a far cry from random, IMHO. |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
489
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 03:53:00 -
[322] - Quote
Brutalis Furia wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:"Increasing options" yes everything will be far more complex than it currently is due to the additional options. "Streamlining" and "Increasing options" is somewhat a contradiction - Increased options is not streamlining, it creates complexity. In this case a lot of unnecessary complexity and randomness. To clarify: CCP is streamlining increasing transparency for existing processes so they can add additional complexity via newdynamic processes. While it may seem a fine distinction, in this case, I've yet to see random variables cited in any of the new complexities being introduced. It may seem random, but from what I see, it's a dynamic system based on ever changing player actions - a far cry from random, IMHO. Because the global and system numbers are not transparent (no tool tip for system Industry level...) the changes are random. While their shifting may be governed by a complex calculation , the cost changes system by system and global level are seemingly random. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
42
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 06:59:00 -
[323] - Quote
Understandably it is a PITA to write and maintain code for two paths reaching the same destination, that said... Station and Starbase (POS) S&I operate on fundamentally different premises, it is easy to go "black box" tech with stations and the new system makes perfect sense in that area. On the flip side it doesn't with POS arrays & labs, the have finite volume, mass, and control specs all very tangible things considering they are built, launched, etc etc by players.
Many of the additions seem more geared for a grad student's thesis or a professor testing his/her pet theory than to make a game more enjoyable or intuitive. It is one thing to dabble in the virtual market much like real day traders it is however unrealistic to expect players to 'chase the dragon' from system to system to shave some costs off S&I jobs, it is too tiresome to be sustained for all but the most regimental groups.
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
239
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 13:44:00 -
[324] - Quote
Brutalis Furia wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:"Increasing options" yes everything will be far more complex than it currently is due to the additional options. "Streamlining" and "Increasing options" is somewhat a contradiction - Increased options is not streamlining, it creates complexity. In this case a lot of unnecessary complexity and randomness. To clarify: CCP is streamlining increasing transparency for existing processes so they can add additional complexity via newdynamic processes. While it may seem a fine distinction, in this case, I've yet to see random variables cited in any of the new complexities being introduced. It may seem random, but from what I see, it's a dynamic system based on ever changing player actions - a far cry from random, IMHO. Oh, I always thought - Dynamic (characterized by constant change) - added randomness.
Less or more players in system brings with it "random" changes. Streamlining is usually defined by simplifying a process - Whereas all these changes are adding complexity.
You said it yourself, "additional complexity via dynamic processes" In plain English - adding more things to change an outcome dependent on multiple factors. An element of "random".
As an example of a random variable - Hire a team, if it is a good team there is an element of random. You don't know how many people will come to the system to use the team, each person adds another element of cost to the outcome of your job.
My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Derrick Miles
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 04:18:00 -
[325] - Quote
I gotta say I have mixed feelings about removing standings requirements from POS deployment entirely. On the one hand, the removal of a requirement to have a particular standing gives newer players an opportunity to get into the manufacturing game in all of it's facets, and I think the ability to put up a POS in any security level system is a good idea. On the other hand, by removing the standings entirely there is not much motivation for industrialists to get faction standings, and now the higher standings can also limit your ability to travel in the other faction's space and move to other manufacturing hubs, actually providing a reason to avoid grinding for standings. It effectively is gutting the importance of faction standings for manufacturers and removing a significant incentive with nothing to counter-balance it.
As a proposal, make the faction standings affect the cost of the job installation, perhaps -1% per point of standings. This would give manufacturers a concrete incentive to get standings, preserves the hard work current players have put in to raising their standings, and also acts as a balance to the tax applied to npc stations as well as the cost added to POS manufacturing. |
Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 06:02:00 -
[326] - Quote
I think I see our disagreement over "random" - and it's a subtle one.
Truly random doesn't matter what the initial conditions are - you get a chance of any one of a number of outcomes.
An extremely complex calculation with dozens or hundreds of interdependent calculations is unpredictable because we can't calculate as fast as the computer. If we could, we would come to the same result. That is not random, and because those values are always changing based on our actions, it's dynamic.
It's a technical distinction, but I consider it an important one because in the first example, you don't have any chance of "winning" - of finding how and where to make the system work for you - it's all random luck. The second system, once you've learned its ins and outs (a process that takes longer the more complex the system is) can be manipulated to your benefit (or used as an economic weapon against your adversaries). |
Lightning roddy
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 11:47:00 -
[327] - Quote
The Reprocessing and Intensive Reprocessing Array only have a 200.000 m3 capacity. That way reprocessing a stack of only 10.000 ice will mean moving the ice into the Array and hitting reprocess 50 times! What if you have 100.000 ice?...
Can't it have a 20.000.000 m3 capacity like the Compressing Array or at least 1.200.000 m3 so you can refine a full freighter?
|
Lee Hyori
New Horizons
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 10:02:00 -
[328] - Quote
Many questions I ask myself across these 17 pages and few answers from CCP.
These posts are read by new players and old which I belong. It would be nice to have answers on the time spent: - to reach level 5 on certain skills: to defend POS or other - the search on BPOs exceeding six months see more than one year (BCs, BSs, Cap components, Cap ships ...)
The fact that the limit of 25 jumps is not homogeneous across all activities. The goal is to build and sell our production.
On the other hand, apart from seeing the new interface, the singularity server does not allow us to test everything that is described in this post whose name is "Starbase Changes".
A DEV post only for BPOs purpose would be welcome. |
KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 00:25:00 -
[329] - Quote
MaverickG wrote:I usually never reply to Dev Blogs but this time I would like to give my opinion to a couple things I do not understand or do not agree with.
1.) I like opening up .8 and above to starbases, but I would like to see the faction standing requirement stay in place. There does need to be a cost of entry to dropping a POS in High Sec.
2.) I don't mind having blueprints required in POS to run the manufacturing ( I like the use of the term "physically available" used in this part of the blog), but I would like to see a way to Lock them down there. In fact, blue print locking and (mostly) unlocking needs to be readdressed since it's a complete pain. I have submitted several complaints and tickets on this. I believe a minor UI change would remedy 75% of the problem.
3.) I am also concerned about market stability once these changes take place, will they be implemented in stages like kronos has been?
1) i agree. many players grind these standings. now just like skillbook changes n SP used to be refunded, how is ccp even going to "refund" standings time grind back lol (give free PLEX? HAHAHA). i think the way the new development in this segment of the game is BADLY implemented for the individual player base. CCP is forcing individuals to play MORE characters and become like a swarm of cheap labor ... ISK and time sink is an intentional new feature of this new gamplay instead of fun factor.
2) bugs are an intended feature as i see many other remind me of this ... intention. it is 1 of the reason why i stop playing around with POS anymore. LOST OF FUN FACTOR
3) the changes will benefit the larger indy entities, the smaller entities will all suffer. again, the changes does not seem to benefit indy commerce towards smaller entities. again LOST OF FUN FACTOR.
i wonder when considering dev changes, does the devs also play as indy? WUT ??? |
KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 00:38:00 -
[330] - Quote
Two step wrote:Is there a real benefit to having 8 million different assembly arrays? Why not use this chance to combine arrays and stop confusing poor new people with component assembly arrays vs. subsystem assembly arrays vs. equipment assembly arrays?
i agree, since it is a revamp. the previous POS fuel system simplification was nice, but these POS internal indy stacking bonuses is terrible. you build a POS, you buy a manufacturing facility (its a piece of robot making a machine part), then you devs seem to add on the fact that now you need to consider workforce as a factor in the global universe sense ... when the individual who setup the POS is the only operator ... *facepalm* WUT ??? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |