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) |

KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 00:57:00 -
[331] - Quote
E6o5 wrote:I don't like that you killed the mini profession of corp creators. Also it doesn't make sense for a faction to allow you to anchor a POS in their space if you have negative standings towards them.
maybe now they will add a new feature, negative standing, NPC will appear and attack your POS.
no wait, it is too complicated for ccp to code that. but it is easier to code the new changes ... no wait ... how can that happen?
while changes in game are changes, i strongly feel these changes have not been considered as being a indy player for a dev to bring in the changes. the DEV should have played it extensively instead of showing us "previously" and then "now" effect. as i have said before, and like what is quoted, the changes is not considering the INDIVIDUAL player base PROPERLY WUT ??? |

KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 01:22:00 -
[332] - Quote
Letto Atreides wrote:Meizu Kho wrote:concerning the online/offline workarounds for the build cost bonus i would like to remind CCP off what they once told us:
no matter how boring, tedious or time consuming an activity is, if it's the most efficient/safest way of doing it, the players will do it.
If you allow people to take advantage of a 26% build cost advantage without having to risk 13 arrays of the same type because they can offline and unancher then during the job they will do it. they will get freighters with 12 arrays ready and do it every job.
I don't mind the bonus but i do if you can dodge the risk. In an earlier post I mentioned the idea of changing from 13 arrays to a single array that had to be upgraded (13 times). This mechanic would prevent the hack you are describing here.
i like this idea too, but what is sad is, it only magnifies the fact this revamp in so many facets has not been given any actual role play test at dev level, so as to find more fun in playing the role in game. it makes me think the devs only communicate their wants and needs to coders, and the problem of play testing is entirely at the coders end also. WUT ??? |

KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 01:30:00 -
[333] - Quote
Chribba wrote:Thanks everyone. Now to figure out if all them Slaves I freed during the years want to return the favor...  /c
for all the slaves being traded around in the game, i rather the bonus system be based on number of slaves you buy and insert into your POSs indy production system/modules. although i rather prefer robots. WUT ??? |

KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 01:46:00 -
[334] - Quote
Felicity Love wrote:asteroidjas wrote:
How did you guys come up with these numbers?
You mean you haven't heard of that "Pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhh" method now favoured in the upper echelons? Y'know, the one that's very similar to the enormously popular "pulling numbers out of thin air" method... or random orifices, for that matter ? Cilly bunt 
or ... something like this ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
game fun is game fun ... just like a red line ... WUT ??? |

KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 02:27:00 -
[335] - Quote
cellestron wrote: Removing the standings requirements without making any other changes to POS mechanics/requirements is a horrible idea.
Now any large corp or alliance can go around and wardec smaller corps, kill their POS and then "grief" the site by putting up an offline POS they never intend to use. They could literally put up hundreds and then hide behind the sheer cost of warrdeccing them to hold the spots.
There needs to be some barrier, limit or challenge to erecting a POS in high sec unless your idea of an "industry change" is having to join a large alliance or coalition to keep your POS (sound familiar?).
Or having entire solar systems filled with offline control towers. The offline control tower problem is bad enough now and really needs to be addressed anyway.
I don't want running a POS in high sec to be risk free. But I don't want the "POS ownership" landscape in High Sec looking like an SOV map either.
At the very least please at least consider buffing the POS defenses to make them more defendable by small active corps before you make this change.
id say ... IF this so call NEW development where POS can be dump almost anywhere is implemented, THEN ... CCP MUST allow that POS offlined can also be attacked anywhere w/o wardec. OR AT LEAST like deployables, if the POS is NOT OPERATED consistently over time, it SHOULD disintegrate like a debris.
BUT id like to propose, zero penalty to attacking un-attended offlined POSs. no doubt it is a time consuming thing to do to bring it down, i think everybody agrees that allowing POS to go up everywhere, will need a measure that they can be brought down anywhere also. WUT ??? |

KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 02:30:00 -
[336] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:cellestron wrote: Removing the standings requirements without making any other changes to POS mechanics/requirements is a horrible idea.
Now any large corp or alliance can go around and wardec smaller corps, kill their POS and then "grief" the site by putting up an offline POS they never intend to use. They could literally put up hundreds and then hide behind the sheer cost of warrdeccing them to hold the spots.
There needs to be some barrier, limit or challenge to erecting a POS in high sec unless your idea of an "industry change" is having to join a large alliance or coalition to keep your POS (sound familiar?).
Or having entire solar systems filled with offline control towers. The offline control tower problem is bad enough now and really needs to be addressed anyway.
I don't want running a POS in high sec to be risk free. But I don't want the "POS ownership" landscape in High Sec looking like an SOV map either.
At the very least please at least consider buffing the POS defenses to make them more defendable by small active corps before you make this change.
You are missing the point where CCP hates casual players, individual players, and even small groups non-aligned with the null sec cartels. If you look at these changes from that context, this overhaul makes sense.
i agree. WUT ??? |

KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 02:36:00 -
[337] - Quote
Veinnail wrote:Gospadin wrote:I do believe that shooting an anchored but unfueled POS shouldn't require a wardec, and that without fuel or stront, the resists/HP should get nerfed.
Cleanup of space junk should be fast and easy. how about the SHIELDS should be down. just saying
oh good, someone noticed. WUT ??? |

KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 02:43:00 -
[338] - Quote
Letto Atreides wrote:Gospadin wrote:Letto Atreides wrote:Gospadin wrote:I do believe that shooting an anchored but unfueled POS shouldn't require a wardec, and that without fuel or stront, the resists/HP should get nerfed.
Cleanup of space junk should be fast and easy. You are very wrong. It both requires a war dec to avoid CONCORD in high-sec and a large fleets worth of DPS to get through an offline stick in a timely fashion. Here's an example of a kill of an offline large caldari tower. *snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal.However a change that makes offline POS easier to blow up would be a very good change indeed! Read my post again. I know it's a pain in the *** to shoot offline towers, hence my suggestion. Sorry... read your first post as a statement not as a suggestion. We are in agreement. It should not require a fleet of dreads to clean up offline space junk. I think offline towers should just be unanchorable by anyone that stumbles upon then.
just like mobile depot with time limit. offlined POS self un-anchors in say like 1 hr ... or even better then it self disintegrates in additional 1 hr ... WUT ??? |

Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
167
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 22:19:00 -
[339] - Quote
fluffy jo wrote:I like these changes coming up for pos production.
The only issue I may have is the potential click fest for onlineing the modules prior to inserting the manufacture job and then offlineing the modules after the manufacture job has been submitted.
as a possible idea to help with this, would it be possible to link the benefit from the pos modules to the time that module has been online. any modules that has not been online for the requested job duration is ignored
for example
you have 2 module at a pos that have been online for 3 days and 4 modules at the same pos that have been online for 7 days.
if you submit a job for 2 days then you get 6 modules benefit. if you submit a job for 4 days then you get 3 modules benefit. if you submit a job for 8 days then you get 0 modules benefit.
this will allow specialists to set up a pos and keep it set up.
anyway just an idea.
edit .. there should be 1 modules benefit applied at all times. even if just anchored and onlined.
I'm not sure why people think it should be possible to offline the additional arrays that you will need to gain tax bonuses. It should be the case that they cannot be offlined otherwise the job fails and the materials are lost. Or that it is not physically possible to offline the arrays if a job is in progress. |

JamnOne
Jammin Corp Jammin Mad
18
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:57:00 -
[340] - Quote
Did I miss something in this thread or alliance members still not allowed to use POS created by different corps in the alliance? |

Money Penney
Duck Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 18:20:00 -
[341] - Quote
Quick question. Does this change:
Newly created corporations now need to wait 7 days before being allowed to anchor Control Towers
apply to corps formed prior to the patch? IOW, corp started 3 days ago... do we need to wait another 4 days to anchor a new tower? or does it only effect corps formed after patch?
|

Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
161
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 04:24:00 -
[342] - Quote
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:So, I spent years grinding empire standings, a big part of the reason why, was so I could put up a POS on my high sec alt.
Whats the point of spending time grinding empire standing now?
CCP please don't make our years worth of standing useless!
They did Well there goes that barrier to entry for High Sec POS
Not that it matters since all the High Sec Research POSes are pointless now |

Julien Brellier
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 21:09:00 -
[343] - Quote
Why does the compression array have an activation distance when all other POS modules can be accessed and used from anywhere inside the bubble? |

Freibuis
Legion of Lost Souls The Lego Cartel
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 06:17:00 -
[344] - Quote
Can Some one please explain to me why BPC's Cant Invented/Produced remotely?.. I get BPO's but BPC's have no value. this makes this remote skill pointless/useless. (can we get a refund for its skill points now its not used?)
Since its consumed on use it why not just let use do it form the Station -> P.O.S.? this will save us time / hassle
This just addes undue time to the production / invention cycles. Hi sec P.O.S's are pretty much useless now.
CCP are we going to be able to lock down Prints in P.O.S. if so what time frames are we looking at..I think we will need an answer here because I would rather sell pos stuff now then leave them dormant in space until this has been fixed
I am calling this a bug,. why Making us move 10B isk prints into POS;s with out giving us the opportunity to lock the down. This should be been made available to us before Locking us out of the POS!!!!!!!!!
btw why I say 10b isk prints... because a Freighter print that once cost 1 Billion isk costs ten times that value because of the new ME costs. |

Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
178
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 03:34:00 -
[345] - Quote
Freibuis wrote:Can Some one please explain to me why BPC's Cant Invented/Produced remotely?.. I get BPO's but BPC's have no value. this makes this remote skill pointless/useless. (can we get a refund for its skill points now its not used?)
Since its consumed on use it why not just let use do it form the Station -> P.O.S.? this will save us time / hassle
This just addes undue time to the production / invention cycles. Hi sec P.O.S's are pretty much useless now.
CCP are we going to be able to lock down Prints in P.O.S. if so what time frames are we looking at..I think we will need an answer here because I would rather sell pos stuff now then leave them dormant in space until this has been fixed
I am calling this a bug,. why Making us move 10B isk prints into POS;s with out giving us the opportunity to lock the down. This should be been made available to us before Locking us out of the POS!!!!!!!!!
btw why I say 10b isk prints... because a Freighter print that once cost 1 Billion isk costs ten times that value because of the new ME costs.
My POS got taken down as I couldn't use it for research anymore. Unless of course I wanted to put my tens of billions worth of BPOS into the POS that is where anyone could take them since they weren't locked down. I trust most of my Corp mates alot, but tens of billions of isk worth of trust is hard to come by. |

Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
45
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 08:57:00 -
[346] - Quote
My POS work as ended on this and alts, this account is not getting renewed nor are the other accounts I have. No more paying real world money feeding PLEX into the system to fund my accounts and subsidize my pursuits in Eve.
People can say what they want I'm boycotting EVE maybe CCP will get the hint, They screwed industry some are too hooked on the kool-aide to care. Already got the email 'reminding' me to renew my accounts just waiting for the cancellation survey 
Simple consumer pragmatism I'm not paying for something if I don't find it entertaining/useful. So minimum 3 mouth hiatus (sadly I have to wait for couple to pass on this account since it was renewed quarterly)
So adieu o7 So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |

Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
99
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 13:44:00 -
[347] - Quote
In the dev blogs it mentions that outposts can be upgraded to increase the amount of minerals gained from the reprocessing array, does that mean the tower? ie: small +2% medium +4% large +7%?
Cheers |

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3818
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 14:18:00 -
[348] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:In the dev blogs it mentions that outposts can be upgraded to increase the amount of minerals gained from the reprocessing array, does that mean the tower? ie: small +2% medium +4% large +7%?
Cheers
Outposts aren't the kind of POS you'd use in High.
They're station like structures, used in Sov Nullsec Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |

Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
100
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 14:27:00 -
[349] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:In the dev blogs it mentions that outposts can be upgraded to increase the amount of minerals gained from the reprocessing array, does that mean the tower? ie: small +2% medium +4% large +7%?
Cheers Outposts aren't the kind of POS you'd use in High. They're station like structures, used in Sov Nullsec
Cheers, i'm sure I read somewhere that you got an increase using a pos, I thought that was the article...I'll keep looking.
|

Starfellow Hawke
Distant Light Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 12:34:00 -
[350] - Quote
Overall, EVE is becoming a game for unemployed hermits who have no family, or real life and can just sit in front of their computer hour upon hour. Very disappointing to see CCP cater to massive corps. I have a life with a real job, a wife and children. I cannot play Eve everyday grinding out industry or missions. I'm down to one account now and quite frankly I'm not sure how much longer I will keep it active.
I understand EVE is an MMO sandbox but as a lone player who doesn't have time for corporation politics there really isn't much left unless I keep buying Plex. Pvp is out of the question as I cannot seem to passively fund it effectively. Even the whole POCO thing I feel ruined PI, which was a decent way to make passive isk .
Maybe I'm missing something... |

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3843
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 14:24:00 -
[351] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:In the dev blogs it mentions that outposts can be upgraded to increase the amount of minerals gained from the reprocessing array, does that mean the tower? ie: small +2% medium +4% large +7%?
Cheers Outposts aren't the kind of POS you'd use in High. They're station like structures, used in Sov Nullsec Cheers, i'm sure I read somewhere that you got an increase using a pos, I thought that was the article...I'll keep looking.
There's a reprocessing array, anchorable at any POS, with a 52% base.
There's the intensive array, anchorable below highsec, with a 54% base. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] [12]:: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |