| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
19
   |
Posted - 2015.04.11 19:51:51 -
[1] - Quote
Ioci wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
They've already said there won't be faction differences between these structures. There's just a Drilling Platform, rather than having a Gallente/Amarr/Minmattar/Caldari/various pirate versions of these structures, with the fuel types split up between the structure types.
Also I'm not sure what RnG stands for here so I can't really comment further, sorry bad with acronyms.
If they plan to remove faction from structures, that nullifies 90% of my concerns. The bulk of my investment is in pirate faction and no matter what CCP say, I know that won't get reimbursed. More stuff classified as Jita Junk added to the pile.
idea 1. the existing POS structures can be left as they are. They are pretty outdated anyways. Would be like a T1 version of a newer, more powerful version of structures.
idea 2. use the existing modules as input materials for building the new version.
idea 3. use the existing modules as equipment to fit to the new structures. I.e. the new "large" defense structures will be able to fit 4-5 large hybrid batteries on the "high" slots, 1-2 domination stasis turrets or shield hardening arrays on the "medium" slots and so on. Would solve the problem for at least part of the existing structures, and it will also make a difference for using faction structures.
|
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 18:22:05 -
[2] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Setting aside the pessimism for a second what do you think would be a reasonable way to reimburse faction structure value?
There could be 2 forms or reimbursement :
- by similar value
- by similar usefulness
Either by reimbursing the money spent on the transaction when that module was bought or an average value of the market price, I think this would be the biggest reimbursement value in the history of eve. Injecting this kind of isk would not do good to eve economy. in the same time, nerfing those modules to almost useless, or reimbursing only a small fraction of their costs would hurt a large portion of eve players, most of which form the backbone of industry and research. That is why i think it makes much more sense to go with a reimbursement which will replace the modules with some of similar use in the new systems. Using them as modules to fit on the new structures would be the best solution in my opinion as it preserves the current professions ( and skills ), production and research lines for those modules, and also the faction ones ( loot/bpcs and existing modules ).
|
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 14:19:42 -
[3] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I think there's also another option here you may not be considering, which is reimbursing the minerals and parts used to create these structures, though that obviously doesn't work for faction ones.
absolutely - i do not mean it would be a prblem to reimburse the standard ones but for the faction ones it would be very difficult, since the price has changed over the years ( a faction tower was even over 4 bil at some point ).
IMO it would be a lot better to find a good use for these modules in the new structure system. |
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 07:37:09 -
[4] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Plus there are, IMO, better options that allow for a more even return on investment.
I absolutely hope there are, and that there will be employed. Because i am personally tired of how popular are, on this forum, the measures that hit the players investing into industry. Me and my co-workers have invested over 100 bil isk in bpos and faction bpcs and modules, and, if i say here that we decided to suspend our accounts if such measures are taken, this thread will fill with smart "can i haz your stuff" replies.
|
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 05:34:21 -
[5] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I'd also like to posit that the vast majority of players who refuse to leave High Sec would, if forced to or if the risk/reward balance was tipped significantly far away from them, probably leave the game rather than leave High Sec, and this would likely kill the game.
Absolutely agree.
Also should note that most of the industry corporations are run by a small number of players ( usually with a large number of accounts ). Small, relatively easy defendable spaces are their territory ( hence the success of Apocrypha and the w-space ). Destroy this balance and most of them will rather leave than move to null.
|
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 07:20:50 -
[6] - Quote
Zan- nah wrote:I wonder what will become of existing faction towers?
There are dozens of faction modules which are in the same situation. I have asked this many times, including by petition, without answer. |
| |
|