Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |

Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
444
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 13:54:10 -
[871] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:What's funny to me is that the Rorqual will still offer better mining boosts than any other ship, even without being in Industrial Core mode. Despite that, people who had to know their "hide in the POS shield" playstyle was on life support for several years are completely freaking out.
It is interesting to see that people will actually have to fly the Rorqual now. They'll have to push buttons more than once and stuff. The Horror! The Horror! The real impact of this is not that the Rorqual will actually be at risk now, but that it will actually require regular player input, making it harder to multibox the ship.
I know I have trained up a Rorqual booster, three Exhumer pilots, and a hauler/scout pilot. In the past, I could easily forget about the Rorqual pilot in his POS, and focus on watching three Exhumers, the hauler or scout, and intel channels. Now I have to pay more attention to another pilot.
As someone who has always relied on multiple characters, I'm noticing the subtle shift CCP has in place to make each pilot matter more and require more player input. I don't have a problem with it, but I am noticing it. It's most evident in the recent Carrier changes. In the past, I could undock three Carriers, drop sentries, assign drones, and establish remote repair chains with ease. Now, that it is all but impossible to multibox Carriers with any degree of efficiency. But flying a single Carrier is a much more fun and engaging play style. I did decide to sell off a few of my Carriers because of these changes, but on the whole it's a good change. As this design philosophy sneaks into more game play aspects, it may eventually cause me to unsubscribe a couple more accounts, but I think in the long run it will make Eve a better, more engaging game.
It certainly would be nice to lay it out in a nice graphic for the hard of thought. Boost level : Porpoise < Orca < Rorqual (no core) < Rorqual (core)
Each carries a bigger risk and bigger reward. I agree, those rewards should be distinctly balanced for the additional risk. Dropping an industrial core should be 100% worth doing and not just a small marginal increase (again, seeing the numbers charted out would help a lot of people).
All this hand-wringing that this is killing mining is nothing more than pain at losing income and efficiency. *Nothing* about these changes fundamentally changes how mining works, how you enjoy it, or anything of that nature. It changes your profitability plain and simple. Base mining should be worth something. But people willing to climb up the risk ladder should be the ones getting the reward, not that the base is the highest reward level because anyone can stick a Rorqual in a POS and boost to the max without risk.
|

Lugh Crow-Slave
2929
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 13:54:59 -
[872] - Quote
Zorn Cosby wrote:Honestly this is pretty harsh for those who invested in fleet boosting for its passive effects. I have no intention of joining a large corp or having any major interaction with one, I however do maintain a large number of alts for hi sec mining which were assisted by a dedicated alt providing passive on grid boosts. I don't ever use crystals as I'm dedicated ice mining. Now it appears that to do the same thing that I have always done (and with a decent number of miners one cannot mine efficiently via AFK, one must pay attention to be effective), I have to spend money for ammo, click more and move more without any improvement in gameplay. I'm supposed to think that this is OK? An improvement? A bonus to gameplay? You just made it harder and more costly for me to play my chosen method of gameplay and have offered me no alternatives (refund SP, give time, refund implants, refund rigs, refund ships). Do you really want new(er) players at all that are not blob PVP oriented?
I'm not sure why combat boost issues are impacting non-combat boosts. Passive boosts are just that, passive. Choosing to eliminate all passive boosts is probably not the way to go. Micromanaging active boosters adds nothing to gameplay, particularly for miners. Adding additional complexity <> improved gameplay but is = to adding barriers to entry. I can somewhat see making combat boosters an ammo field (but then you have to remove the capacitor effects to be fair and then this changes LOTS of ships since now boosters would no longer drain cap).
Nearing 3 years into eve with 7 PAID accounts since I don't play that much and have no interest in PVP at all. I'll wait and see how this rolls out but from my initial look this is a fairly huge negative to hi sec miners that have utterly no interest in other portions of space. This may be a good time to examine other games to consume my cash...
SURPRISE!!
you are playing an MMO so it will be balanced on the side of ppl working together rather than solo
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 13:58:27 -
[873] - Quote
GsyBoy wrote:Lots of text here, only have one question and one suggestion, if someone could assist.
As currently mainly a solo pilot, how do I know when another toon is under the influence of bonuses? In local like a criminal or only when i see the ship and effects?
Would suggest bonuses removed when ship enters warp is my only comment.
Thanks.
with the revamp there will be visuals showing that ship is affected by command boosts - there is a vid in a blog showing them
here grab a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py-LZv_tGjs |

Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:00:19 -
[874] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
SURPRISE!!
you are playing an MMO so it will be balanced on the side of ppl working together rather than solo
So please explain why mining needs to have active boosts to improve mining gameplay. It does not improve gameplay, it negatively impacts gameplay. |

Lugh Crow-Slave
2929
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:01:20 -
[875] - Quote
Zorn Cosby wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
SURPRISE!!
you are playing an MMO so it will be balanced on the side of ppl working together rather than solo
So please explain why mining needs to have active boosts to improve mining gameplay?
because working together should be rewarding. boosts are just one way to do that
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:43:17 -
[876] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
because working together should be rewarding. boosts are just one way to do that
So now you are defending a major change in the game to materially negatively impact mining as a form of gameplay to encourage more blobing and less solo. So you and CCP are advocating making it harder and less effective to play for smaller mining groups or individuals because you want to change playstyles of existing paying players.
As an existing paying player, I will just choose to either not play or play a lot less vs changing playstyles. Changing playstyles is a big deal, it is not like real life where there is no choice when things like tax or law changes happen, with that you have to adapt. In a game there are always other choices and the choice of not playing (and therefore not paying) is not one that CCP should encourage...
I fail to see how hi sec mining will have any improved gameplay from this change. It will only have negative impacts. CCP is choosing to negatively impact hi sec mining in particular for zero positives for such players. If I am a small representative of such players, this carries no benefits and no ability to recover from relatively massive investments in time, SP, and ISK. And to continue to use said investments, such players will have to spend more money, click more, and this is <> better but = worse for players. |

Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:51:49 -
[877] - Quote
I have to say not having to play musical boosters will be a great treat! Let's hope BIAB doesn't object to this great upcoming change! Now onto my Q&A portion of this post:
- During combat, when the fleet's collective remaining HP drops below 25% will you be able to swap charges from say... Shield Extension & Harmonizing to Armor Reinforcement & Energizing like you can with ammo and other charges or will it follow the "Run what you brung" mantra you've adopted? This module to charge change is slightly confusing aspect if you cannot change during combat timer.
- Likewise bursts cannot be stacked, will this include say a Leadership + Information specialist at 5 having Superiority & Hardening but NOT the Optimization prevent a Leadership 5/Information specialist 3 WITH said Optimization from boosting the fleet? -- If so, will there be a 'flag' (such as free-move or the command positions) preventing such abuse? -- If not, how will BIAB choose?
- The implants will be changed from a certain bonus to AoE radius, will CCP be reimbursing the focused implants?
- What will the result be of Player A bringing all 3 Shield bursts, Player B bringing all Armor bursts, etc etc for the fleet? Besides an over-shiny fleet?
- Will exploits such as boost-swap-boost (Wait till cycle hits, swap ship, "Oh look! five new boosts!")be prevented?
- Last but not important, will fighter squadrons/drones and other space-oriented goodies be affected by the burster? I only ask because even though you won't affect a tethered ship, the citadels have shield, armor, resistances as do drones and fighters.
Thanks for listening, and don't forget to tip your waitresses and busboys. |

Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:53:04 -
[878] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Zorn Cosby wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
SURPRISE!!
you are playing an MMO so it will be balanced on the side of ppl working together rather than solo
So please explain why mining needs to have active boosts to improve mining gameplay? because working together should be rewarding. boosts are just one way to do that
Because if we can't hide our Nyx inside a POS shield why should a Rorqual be able to? |

HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1819
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:02:17 -
[879] - Quote
Now, you can use / fly the Orca into the belt, boost everybody and fly back, or even better use the Orca as hauler as well. Not beeing forced to stay, where you are, cause Mindlinks would turn of, if you are start warping.
Your Command Ship or your T3 can fly arround, help the miners ratting, light a cyno, what ever you want - cause you are not forced to live on your safespot / close to POS / close to Citadel anymore.
This reminds me of the Battle-Orders-Barbarians in Diablo 2 ... |

Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:02:43 -
[880] - Quote
Warlord Balrog wrote:
Because if we can't hide our Nyx inside a POS shield why should a Rorqual be able to?
And I'm not defending the 'bug' that permits industrials from providing boosts in a POS, IMHO this has been a longtime issue that could be resolved without going to an active boost state with ammo costs (OK CCP comment on the cap issues cause if you are using ammo then cap costs disappear). I'm just commenting that the changes have a relatively large impact upon miners, and it will impact hi sec miners in a negative way that makes gameplay more costly, less beneficial, and more clicky in return for nothing. And to add insult to injury, CCP has no communicated plan to ameliorate this impact by returning SP or ISK or gametime. |
|

Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:07:26 -
[881] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:Now, you can use / fly the Orca into the belt, boost everybody and fly back, or even better use the Orca as hauler as well. Not beeing forced to stay, where you are, cause Mindlinks would turn of, if you are start warping.
Your Command Ship or your T3 can fly arround, help the miners ratting, light a cyno, what ever you want - cause you are not forced to live on your safespot / close to POS / close to Citadel anymore.
This reminds me of the Battle-Orders-Barbarians in Diablo 2 ...
Why make Big Bertha exercise? She'll collapse if she moves too far or fast, that's more of a job for Transport/Freighters. |

Always Shi
t Posting
50
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:09:35 -
[882] - Quote
Is anyone able to activate an Improved Forum Posting command burst in this thread? |

Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:18:10 -
[883] - Quote
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?
Crystals are a dime a dozen, or am I missing something?
If you read closely, two mining boosts had their powers combined to form captain planet! |

Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:30:48 -
[884] - Quote
Rowells wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Zanar Skwigelf wrote:Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?
Crystals are a dime a dozen, or am I missing something? There was never a "yield" boost. There was a cycle time boost, a cap cost boost, and a range boost. The cycle time and capacitor cost reduction were rolled into one boost, and the crystal volatility one is new. Yep. Completely new bonus. A creative one, no doubt, but I still believe that by itself it doesn't really do nearly as much as the other two. I worry that it will become one of those boosts that doesn't really get used because its impact is so small.
There is plenty of stuff on the market that can be defined by 'waste'. I guess CCP figured that a "200% bonus to mining crystal bonus would be too powerful, I sort of agree with that assessment, however, I do completely agree there is no point in having crystals become less volatile via link. Either: A) Remove their damage mechanic all together (Let's face it, most charges don't get damaged); or B) Directly link their mining bonus % to the crystal's EHP (NO! No repair paste mumbo-jumbo here!) from 100% at 0% damage to say 5% just before it explodes. Thus making the third M.F. charge worth more than a placeholder for something more..... creative in the future.
One of the hillarious things is most people don't realize you can get your moneys worth out of the crystals if they're "too expensive" for you by unloading them at 95-98% and recycling them at base for nocxium  |

Lugh Crow-Slave
2930
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:44:02 -
[885] - Quote
Warlord Balrog wrote:Zanar Skwigelf wrote:Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?
Crystals are a dime a dozen, or am I missing something? If you read closely, two mining boosts had their powers combined to form captain planet!
no the yield boost has been removed
the cycle time and cap have been combined
the yield boost was passive given by skill and implant
for the other links the passive skill became a script for the module shield hp armor hp ect mining had the yield one removed and replaced with the crystal bonus
i don't care either way just clarifying
Citadel worm hole tax
|

GsyBoy
Flames of the Phoenix Amplified.
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:55:11 -
[886] - Quote
Can we have two threads, one for mining and one for pvp implications, some only interested in one or another I feel, would make thread more readable also. |

Grimulfr Meinfertr
CAS Traitors CAStabouts
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:58:15 -
[887] - Quote
This essentially kills the free fleet boost for mining in high sec. I guess thanks for making bumping a bit less effective.... that was minor. Making mining fleet boosts only work in a small area will kill the free mining fleet. This is a massive nerf for anybody who mines with fewer than five accounts and a very major boost to the "locust fleet" where a single person manages multiple (over five) clients to vacuum up ores and ice. I guess we can easily see where CCP wants mining to go. They want miners with ten accounts buying plex with isk from players who only have one or two accounts, who sell plex for isk because it's not economically viable to mine for isk as a newer player. BUY PLEX!
Other posters: The yield boost was not a link. The yield boost was from mining foreman. |

Tavari Minrathos
PC Load Letter
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 16:10:22 -
[888] - Quote
Questions:
1: Will the new mining battle cruiser use an existing skill or new one?
2: Are you considering a 3rd rig slot as part of the command ship rebalance?
3: I know its coming in the 3rd blog, but can you give an idea of how extensive the changes to combat boosting ships (command ships in particular) are going to be? Are we talking minor grid/CPU adjustments, major overhauls, or just rebalancing within the ship class?
4: Has the design team planned for players twisting links. By twisting, I mean giving 2 buffs from 1 module by changing ammo types every cycle after max duration skills? Is this the designed intent for high skill play or do you see boosting modules more as utility high slot.
5: Will there be options for players to turn the graphics off/down client side to prevent mass d/c or lag issues with undock/jumping system and massive number of players spamming these visual effects? (Fleet of 70-100 players all spamming links on the Jita undock for example)
6: Roughly in which blog will we hear more about the ammo for boosts? Or will that info only be available on the test server?
Thanks for the blog and info, changes look potentially very impactful. |

Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 16:19:00 -
[889] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Team Five 0 wrote:However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected. The only thing that gives me pause is the stacking penalty. Example: Seems odd that it may benefit a mining ship to NOT fit a MLU.
Off the top of my head, I can think of a very good reason for opening a low slot up, TANK! (AKA Anti-gank AKA lamer-be-gone) If having an on-grid booster frees up two more low slots, you best believe those Skiff pilots will be very tankful.
On a side note, it'll be nice not having to be one of the very few boosters who fit more than one type of boost category, IE: Shield Harmonizer instead of MF cap reduction link. Face it, barges/exhumers don't need it anyway. :)
Lastly, I don't think you'll be seeing many Orcas, and unless they're very secure and/or rich, Rorq pilots boosting on field very often after the change. Hell, I bet skill injector prices will burst because of the leadership changes, many Orca pilots will repurpose or quit (probably ragequit after spending a few billion on skills and the now useless MF implant).
Not that anyone cares, but I'll be extracting all leadership skills and hold a candlelight vigil for anything relying on it (*cough* Fighters *cough*). Oh, and probably Cybernetics 5, as there'll be no implants requiring it of use anymore |

Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 16:33:36 -
[890] - Quote
Yeah, I agree with you on Cybernetics V now basically being worthless and the big increase in extractors, this is a strong money grab from an entire class of players.
This could have been done so much more thoughtfully.
Just take current tanking as examples. Passive protective modules yield lower results for less fiddling. Active protective modules often yield better results but cost more in other areas (fit, skills, ISK or other issues). Now apply that thought process to fleet boosters. If you want a passive boost with longer range, then you can get it but with less effect. If you want an active, more effective boost with shorter range, you could get that too, but with harder fitting or other costs. This current proposal is just a ram the sucker down the throat of everyone as a cookie cutter and pray you don't screw too many of the player base.
The whole sit in a POS with your booster, was always BS, so doing away with that is OK as far as I am concerned.
But eliminating passive boosts entirely and making them all highly localized and cost money and,and,and is just not very thoughtful or consistent or proactive. And for an entire group (miners) it adds nothing to gameplay at all, just takes away. |
|

Lugh Crow-Slave
2930
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 16:56:43 -
[891] - Quote
Zorn Cosby wrote:.
But eliminating passive boosts entirely and making them all highly localized and cost money and,and,and is just not very thoughtful or consistent or proactive. And for an entire group (miners) it adds nothing to gameplay at all, just takes away.
Now watch CCP just ignore input/comments/etc and just ram this sucker
how is putting another ship in belt that now needs a pilot (not someone with their pc on at work) taking away gameplay
it may take away profits but that is not the same
and even in combat why should you be able to provide passive boosts?
i cant give passive RR i cant do passive DPS i cant do passive e-war
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 17:13:36 -
[892] - Quote
What are the possibilities of making OGB work like RR, in that, the further from the booster you are, the less effective his boosts are? This will not have such a negative inpact on the change amoungst veterans AND as an added bonus will keep Rorqual and capital boosting pilots in the game a little longer because they can sit further out and at least have a chance at redemption after after it hits the fan. On a side note, it adds more tactical gameplay to develop. Should I bump that booster this way or that is only one aspect of the grid. Instead it becomes, will booshing or bumping him be worth my while? FCs will have more work, the bursting ships will require some more coordination, and the leadership skills can be put to use rather than cannon fodder in our resumes. Last but not least, Orca and Rorq pilots will not hold their mining frigates up (it will be up to a transport to keep up instead) :)
-2 cents |

Decaneos
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
143
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 17:22:48 -
[893] - Quote
Raido Kudonen wrote:
Only if you forgot to be 2-3 jumps in. It might be 15 seconds between when ceptors spike a system and shotgun anoms and when they land on you, if it's a small system. But it takes around 30 seconds to warp gate to gate in a typical nullsec system, so if you are watching the entrance to your bearing constellation and you're 2-3 jumps in you have at least 75-90 seconds to work with.
In short, don't be afk and bear while aligned.
So what you going to be doing while the core is active? cause last time i looked that's 300 seconds of not going anywhere.
|

Brodit
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 18:02:35 -
[894] - Quote
So if I read this right, farewell to passive boosts.
Okay now answer why?
Poor gameplay? Because leadership can be remotely applied. Leadership is remotely applied all the time in real life. Does that make leadership in real life a bad idea? Of course not. Furthermore I don't remember Her Maj head of the armed forces of Britain popping across to Helmand to give on grid pep talk. Unlikely any high level command ever see combat zones.
Lack of counter? Sort the mining boosts then, no combat boosts can be applied from a pos/cit.
If CCP don't like leadership skills - remove them, refund the sps, move on.
Better yet, suck it up. Modify the passive skill boosts and introduce the on grid leadership skills as a completely different set of skills within leadership skill tree. You could then have fleets with passive AND active leadership skills plus a whole host of new skills to be trained within that skill group.
When CCP said they were going to improve leadership and make it meaningful I was expecting more, not less gameplay.
I suppose any hope for a command Fortizar is shot to hull now as well. 
Carry on, your going to anyway.
|

Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1905
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 18:34:36 -
[895] - Quote
Brodit wrote:Does that make leadership in real life a bad idea?
No, followers make leadership in real life a bad idea.  |

Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 18:52:58 -
[896] - Quote
This sounds like a good idea to structure feedback:
GsyBoy wrote:Can we have two threads, one for mining and one for pvp implications, some only interested in one or another I feel, would make thread more readable also.
|

Lugh Crow-Slave
2932
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:02:00 -
[897] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:This sounds like a good idea to structure feedback: GsyBoy wrote:Can we have two threads, one for mining and one for pvp implications, some only interested in one or another I feel, would make thread more readable also.
Lol you are asking CCP to split a thread like that????
they always do this kind of thing go back and look at the thread where they changed hull resists
it was swamped with ppl talking about freighters and almost nothing else could be talked about. If ccp didn't split that one no way they split this one
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:19:09 -
[898] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
how is putting another ship in belt that now needs a pilot (not someone with their pc on at work) taking away gameplay
it may take away profits but that is not the same
and even in combat why should you be able to provide passive boosts?
i cant give passive RR i cant do passive DPS i cant do passive e-war
Gotta admit you are looking a bit like a CCP tool...
Another ship was ALWAYS needed for boosts. It ALWAYS needed to be piloted. So unless you are talking about those who sit on a POS, nothing has changed in terms of ships or pilots. Now I agree that POS sitters were an issue, no risk whatsoever for pretty big gains. If this is a main beef, then this could and should have been resolved long ago via a simple patch. That is a mechanic that was always skewed by big gains for zero risk.
System-wide bonuses have been around a long, long time. Now there is a proposal to NOT do something that has pretty much always been a part of the game. People have built characters and corps around the passive effects that boosters have. The cheapening of these skills and their effects do alter the basic building blocks of the game and characters built over years in the game.
Let's see. I'm particularly interested in mining, not combat, and many of those with major concerns are surrounding the effects upon mining fleets (my example was hi sec). To have to run multiple Orcas in a single system to service a fleet, when the entire premise of that group or corp or whatever was built to just run a single Orca, is a massive issue. This is not a single small gang, or a single fleet, it is more than possible to have 60+km between ships in a single field and to have over 20 fields in a single system. + making me expend ammo to support a function that NEVER had that expense and was never planned to have that expense is yet another negative. Refilling ammo for a mining fleet, yet more clicking and expense for no gameplay advantages.
This is just more and more clicks and expense and removing SP and time spent by players for no gains. Make whatever you want of the combat issues, but this is a HUGE shift and it is a take away vs a bonus. Combat players can take different things away as I am not as sure of the impacts there (although the Strategic Cruisers seem yet again to gain more out of this than the already gimped Command Ships), miners are losing substantially in this proposal. |

Lugh Crow-Slave
2937
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:23:32 -
[899] - Quote
so now you need more orcas so there is MORE reason to train the skills as corps no longer just need one pilot why is that a bad thing
i can think of a lot of players who trained orca and were never able to use it because some one just left there orca alt on all day with an open fleet even w/o a pos
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
423
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:46:30 -
[900] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:so now you need more orcas so there is MORE reason to train the skills as corps no longer just need one pilot why is that a bad thing
i can think of a lot of players who trained orca and were never able to use it because some one just left there orca alt on all day with an open fleet even w/o a pos
I don't think your understanding the issue:
Firstly CCP is doing away with the orca alt on all day afk thing - the links run on fuel/ammo now so there will be limited time before having to refill. Secondly you have to be on grid so people will be much less inclned to leave an orca sitting in a belt - even in high sec all day.
I think the main issue for most miners is that there are a limited number of rocks in any belt, now we currently can have a fleet in a system with a booster mining over several belts. Anyone who has mined and has experience in doing it knows that once you get 3 or 4 skiff/mack/hulks in any single belt that you have reached a maximum. So we often split up to different belts. This change basically means that we now need to have multiple boosters for the same number of miners. And orcas are not cheap they are 700-800 million isk plus fittings and require significant investment of skills. This is a large barrier to new corps, new bros wanting to learn and grow. It effectively KILLs amazing groups like CASMA from providing a good new player experience.
I am hopefull that CCP can find a way to tie the on grid to the belt/anom beacon and give the booster the system wide or at least an AU wide boost. It still forces the booster on field which is what the main issue that most people have, and I fully agree, the days of sitting in a POS behind a shield and fleet boosting are over. Or parking at a station and boosting.
I have already in this thread said I agree with on grid, I agree with some of the simplification, and I am 100% in agreement of the use of fuel/ammo to run the boosts - its great for indy folks and miners since they will build/provide all of this new material. (Don;t forget CCP to add this to cloaks! - cloaking should use a tremendous amount of power and yes fuel)
So basically im good with these changes - it is the range issue that I am having the most diffculty with as there are belts 100s of KMs across and only the Rorq comes close to that range, and it prevents you from mining in a system, it localizes everything to one belt which for anyone who has played the game knows is just not the way it works.
I have also seen a suggestion that the hidden anoms come back, I have never liked that change to begin with I think scanning down ore sites should never have been removed, it should always be required, particularly with these changes. CCP is going to destroy wormhole mining with this change and I have never liked that high sec anoms just show up - make people actually have to work for it.
Cheers ~R~
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |