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) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 18:26:30 -
[1531] - Quote
Vasili Zaitsez wrote:Khan Wrenth
...
Prior posters are categorically incorrect Orca boosts are better than Rorqual not deployed due to Orca 3% per hull level advantage compared to Rorqual 0% per level without Industrial Core
...
As to the "..whip cream on top..." I never really considered this. You have a good argument here.
In the end this will balance out. If Rorquals must deploy for max boost, most will likely either Not deploy or go to Orca if it remains a more capable booster than a non-deployed Rorqual. The net effect will cause a slight rise in Ore values [in some null regions] due to less availability which will self balance this problem. I doubt there will be any impact in HighSec. Are we talking current or proposed? I ask because there is a pretty clear statement contradicting this is the blog:
Dev Blog wrote: Rorqual
Can fit three Command Burst modules
Can fit one Pulse Activated Nexus Invulnerability Core module
+5% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
+3% bonus to Shield Command Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
Role Bonus: +50% bonus to Command Burst Area of Effect Range
This is greater than the Orca's stated 3% Mining Foreman Burst Strength per level, so even without the core the Rorqual is better. If you're referring to the current state of affairs that doesn't really have any bearing on post change concerns.
Vasili Zaitsez wrote:Its simple folks, Rorqual is the only command ship immobilized while boosting. Industrial Core is a compression engine inappropriately tied to boosting. Propulsion is diverted to compress rock.
With 150km+ boosting range on grid, putting Rorqual on field makes sense.
PvPers, what is your reaction to immobilizing ALL command ships? BCs, Capitals, Super Capitals, all immobilized while boosting just like Rorqual?
Hey if were looking for fish in a barrel to shoot, I want in on some 100b killmails when Titans get immobilized while boosting. {Ridiculous example to be sure but so is immobilizing a command ship} Pretty sure this is going to be a non-issue since as stated above the Rorqual will have an innate boosting bonus suggesting it's boosting function is NOT inherently tied to immobilization. The only difference will be that unlike command ships we won't even have the option of 25% - 30% boost strength increase whether mobile or not. |
Vasili Zaitsez
Malleus Clusores Brothers of Tangra
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 18:35:44 -
[1532] - Quote
Are we talking current or proposed? I ask because there is a pretty clear statement contradicting this is the blog:
Current
While the "Proposed" is: Rorqual
Can fit three Command Burst modules
Can fit one Pulse Activated Nexus Invulnerability Core module
+5% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
+3% bonus to Shield Command Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
Role Bonus: +50% bonus to Command Burst Area of Effect Range
Go to SiSi, redeem your Command burst modules and try fitting them to the Rorqual. You will find the Rorqual specs unchanged, COmmand burst module range limited to 50km and you can only fit one module.
While CCP does say 'Numbers not final' we don't get to see a full test. So, the final verdict is not yet in. We will see when its all out which ship is best. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 18:38:18 -
[1533] - Quote
Vasili Zaitsez wrote:Are we talking current or proposed? I ask because there is a pretty clear statement contradicting this is the blog:
Current
While the "Proposed" is: Rorqual
Can fit three Command Burst modules
Can fit one Pulse Activated Nexus Invulnerability Core module
+5% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
+3% bonus to Shield Command Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
Role Bonus: +50% bonus to Command Burst Area of Effect Range
Go to SiSi, redeem your Command burst modules and try fitting them to the Rorqual. You will find the Rorqual specs unchanged, COmmand burst module range limited to 50km and you can only fit one module.
While CCP does say 'Numbers not final' we don't get to see a full test. So, the final verdict is not yet in. We will see when its all out which ship is best. Pretty sure Rorq changes haven't hit yet so I'm not sure what good that will do.
Bear in mind prior to the release we ARE supposed to see a revised Rorq and command ships.
Either way unless you have some reason to suspect what was provided in the blog was wholly wrong vs not implemented I'd say you're jumping the gun assuming no change whatsoever to the Rorq. |
Vasili Zaitsez
Malleus Clusores Brothers of Tangra
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 19:39:41 -
[1534] - Quote
"Pretty sure Rorq changes haven't hit yet so I'm not sure what good that will do.
Bear in mind prior to the release we ARE supposed to see a revised Rorq and command ships.
Either way unless you have some reason to suspect what was provided in the blog was wholly wrong vs not implemented I'd say you're jumping the gun assuming no change whatsoever to the Rorq."
I really hope your right! Just did the math on how far AoE boosts will reach out from Rorqual to the miners. It is only 46.75km with FC5 and Rorqual Role bonus of 50% this is using the stated base range of 15km.
Using the Orca, you get less effectiveness but same range
You will have to park dead on the Warp in and rely on your hulks 36km laser range to reach the outer rocks.
I personally see a way around this problem. [Not sharing with you PvP types looking in]
I suspect that when faced with these numbers [if final] some hard decisions will need to be made.
If looking at what is offered and estimating the outcome based on experience is "Jumping the gun", then I am Jumping the Gun and sharing info so we can all head into this as informed as possible. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 19:46:28 -
[1535] - Quote
Vasili Zaitsez wrote:If looking at what is offered and estimating the outcome based on experience is "Jumping the gun", then I am Jumping the Gun and sharing info so we can all head into this as informed as possible. What you're jumping the gun in specifically is the assumption above that the numbers in the blog were false. Adapting tactics to suit what was presented not so much. You can't really "estimate the outcome based on experience" of a 5%/level bonus by stating it's 0% looking at an incomplete patch on the test server then argue another class of ship should get nerfs based of something that may not even remain in it's current form. |
Now Life
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 05:15:03 -
[1536] - Quote
just an idea
A rorq is a Capital Industrail Ship , give it 3 fighter bays and bonus when industrial core is active |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3231
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 08:08:47 -
[1537] - Quote
Now Life wrote:just an idea
A rorq is a Capital Industrail Ship , give it 3 fighter bays and bonus when industrial core is active
so are freighters orcas and JFs i don't see your reasoning
BLOPS Hauler
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
304
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 12:14:30 -
[1538] - Quote
@CCP fozzie
Please change heavy water to Liquid ozone in the charges.
null sec miners will already have a massive heavy water deficit
for my self, i presently have a stock of 6m heavy water, vs 35m units of ozone. when am i going to use that much ozone??
so please either make the charges use Ozone, or re balance the ice refines for a higher concentration of heavy water
Thank you |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
305
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 18:59:34 -
[1539] - Quote
your just released devblog has just increased the damand on heavy water... please add more heavy water to nullsec, remove some ozone |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:04:22 -
[1540] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Now Life wrote:just an idea
A rorq is a Capital Industrail Ship , give it 3 fighter bays and bonus when industrial core is active so are freighters orcas and JFs i don't see your reasoning To be fair, optimal gameplay for freighters/JFs is to minimize the time spent in space using whatever means available. I'm horribly unfamiliar with Carrier/Fighter DPS but since the Rorq is getting 2k max paper DPS it may already be covered. Also I'll be able to fit that MWD on my orca and an extra mid to fit it. Might actually undock it in the future.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3231
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:40:37 -
[1541] - Quote
best part of that blog was seeing orca finally getting an RR and drone bonus mostly the RR
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 21:31:56 -
[1542] - Quote
That number doesn't account for drone travel time if I'm understanding correctly, but I'm not sure how much that brings it down. The numbers do seem pretty close. Another thing to consider is a proc can have damage drones out as well as being able to mine from strips. Also I'm not certain whether the number accounts for boosts already. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3231
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 21:35:10 -
[1543] - Quote
its not hard to sit on rocks and the time lost going rock to rock is not significant.as for def drones its not hard to just pull them in and swap even then it doesn't give me a reason to use a ret over this thing
lowing it down to around 750-800 i think would be a safer number
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 21:57:24 -
[1544] - Quote
Correct me if the math is way off, but a ret with 2 MLUs and mining drones should pull ~1300 - 1400m^3/min (1080m^3/min without drones). Against a realistic 800m^3/min the only loss is the hold. That also assumes no drone rigs on the Ret and (since the word MAX was used I'm assuming) 2 T2 rigs on the Porp.
A max skilled but 0 MLU Proc should pull ~900 by the same math.
Also I reread the blog and found it stated that the boosts don't work on the drones so that's a non-factor solo as well. The only big draw here is the hold IMHO and since I personally would likely triple tank rig the number should be around 750 - 775 theoretical/650 - 700 realistic yield.
I'll likely get one to try, but I can see myself ultimately sticking with the Proc for cost/benefit. |
Fondant Fancy
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 10:13:33 -
[1545] - Quote
Darlings, what have you done?
The scale of the feedback should be sufficient to alert you to how seriously your proposed changes will impact a significant number of loyal (paying) players.
It seems that a major driving force for the changes around the warfare links is the lack of transparency regarding those ships being boosted - so why not just implement the proposed change to make such boosts visible on the ships receiving and giving them? Requiring the boosting ship to be 'on grid' is a far more contentious point and one that really does impact on the rationale of why people trained the skills, bought the ships IN GOOD FAITH and spent valuable time developing their game play.
As for Command ships, the time and expense needed to fly these at their highest skill rating is considerable but (unless I've missed the reply in the 70+ pages on this forum) they will be materially impacted by the changes rendering much of what has been spent utterly wasted (less time to get to level 5 and 3 warfare links reduced to two burst). Unless these ships are to be given additional bonuses to compensate for the loss, then recompense is a legitimate issue which has not been sufficiently addressed, if at all.
EVE is a game in which planning ahead is a critical aspect of character development but, whilst it's great that you strive to continually improve it, this particular set of proposals risks undermining our confidence that such planning has any value whatsoever. It shouldn't be a surprise that those who have made the investment are the least supportive of the changes whilst, I suspect, those most likely to gain from the changes have little to lose.
Still love you lots, hope you've 'battened down the hatches' for the onset of winter in Iceland. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3233
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 11:23:21 -
[1546] - Quote
Fondant Fancy wrote:
EVE is a game in which planning ahead is a critical aspect of character development but, whilst it's great that you strive to continually improve it, this particular set of proposals risks undermining our confidence that such planning has any value whatsoever.
this point falls flat when at least for half a decade they have been talking about as soon as its feasible they want to put boosts on grid
BLOPS Hauler
|
GsyBoy
Flames of the Phoenix
20
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 12:37:38 -
[1547] - Quote
Seen the new specifics on boosts, look really good, but have one request.
Cancel bonuses on warp and if this is not viable on acceleration gates as with jump gates.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3234
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 13:30:08 -
[1548] - Quote
I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices
making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in
BLOPS Hauler
|
Fuzzy TheBear
Know Your Neighbors Emporium WO'S HO'S
7
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 13:38:20 -
[1549] - Quote
Pandora Carrollon wrote:Look guys-
The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.
...
There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts.
Since you mention it .. Problem A ) is CODE uses what miners consider a flaw in CONCORD mechanics to pull them away from the belt using suicide ships and kill the mining ship with another .. i mean .. atm , there is nothing to protect the miners from ganking in high sec. The flaw in Concord mechanics is even on the web in ganking web sites in clear detail on how to use it to kill miners. ATM there is NO security in hi sec at all. A DEV even mentioned " you accept PVP the moment you undock. "
I mean .. ok .. let's be straight here .. we're manufacturing and mining and making **** to go to markets and have spent unbelievable time to get mining boosts skills for fleet boosts. We spent years of time getting " skills " up to be able to do this ****. Making the stuff that you see in the markets takes time and dedication. Resource extraction , mining , PI , research , manufacturing ,material efficiency .. tons of skills and time spent working hard to give you ships , modules , equipment that are needed for PvP and to be able to self sustain mining requirements for equipment. This is all based with the ability to get base materials , resources , extracted . Now every time you get a chance to , for some unknown reason , you come in with changes that have a negative effect on resource extraction when what you want to do is balance the PvP and battle operations.
When you take away the ability for a player to boost the miners in a system while you're docked in a POS you take away the possibility of the player that goes to work to use his account , game time he payed for . It's his business to leave the client opened all day , you also take away the extra yield that the miners can extract . POS boosting for mining actually HELPS keeping the costs of manufacture of ships etc , down for everyone in the game. It WILL have a direct effect on the prices of stuff or if we take the hit ( again ) accounts will be closed , people WILL drop the game because we can't get anywhere ISK wise and they simply aren't interested in going PvP only , like you guys seem to be hellbent to turn the game exclusively to.
Industrialists are fundamental to EVE economy, but changes that are made always end up going against our capacity to keep the market being alive and well. Specially in " high sec " ( which means nothing really ) . I would simply devide the game into two groups when making changes. Changes that affect the war, pvp side of the game ( i adore going to Spectre Fleet and RvB , so i love that PvP FvF ( fleet versust fleet ) side too , that is 100% fun and i love it ) should not come affect the industrial side automatically and always end up making the game less interresting to our industrial group .
Of course we're talking mining boosting here.
And so changes that you make to industry should not penalise PvP and changes to PVP should not necessarily affect industry either. Fair is fair .. And last note .. the player always looses somehow in some way. Why not for a change make changes that will actually benefit players ( PvP and Industrials ) positively and give them what they expect of a game .. fun .. and not aggravation.
Thanks for listening .. /me steps off the soapbox
Signed Your friendly neighborhood carebear ^^ Fuzzy
( here comes the flood of torrential critics and " carebear " insults .. better close this tab and go back to the news ; )
|
Galinius Valgani
Albertross Mining Corp. Off The Reservation.
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 14:34:03 -
[1550] - Quote
If i get the 2 Devblogs right... I could just take a Porpoise fit a Shield and Mining Burst, Load all Boost Ammo Types, Max all Skills and due to be able to reload all 30s( Command Burst Specialist) I may provide all boosts to my fleetmates by rotating Ammo for my Boosters? |
|
GsyBoy
Flames of the Phoenix
20
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 23:25:13 -
[1551] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices
making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in
Disagree, you would see on d scan and a toon in local going criminal. Also proper links would not get in novices where men fight. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18137
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 05:02:22 -
[1552] - Quote
Galinius Valgani wrote:If i get the 2 Devblogs right... I could just take a Porpoise fit a Shield and Mining Burst, Load all Boost Ammo Types, Max all Skills and due to be able to reload all 30s( Command Burst Specialist) I may provide all boosts to my fleetmates by rotating Ammo for my Boosters?
Yes, if you wanted to micromanage that much you could.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3638
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 05:39:48 -
[1553] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Galinius Valgani wrote:If i get the 2 Devblogs right... I could just take a Porpoise fit a Shield and Mining Burst, Load all Boost Ammo Types, Max all Skills and due to be able to reload all 30s( Command Burst Specialist) I may provide all boosts to my fleetmates by rotating Ammo for my Boosters? Yes, if you wanted to micromanage that much you could. No they couldn't. They've forgotten the 1 minute cycle time on top of the 30 second reload. Which means you can't rotate boosts in the same module even with max skills. |
Galinius Valgani
Albertross Mining Corp. Off The Reservation.
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 06:29:36 -
[1554] - Quote
Aahh thats it. Thanks for pointing that out. Unless they allow it to extend buff duration reach 25% with max Skills/implants/drugs I think I am happy to not have trained FleetCommand yet. :D |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18137
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 07:53:04 -
[1555] - Quote
Fuzzy TheBear wrote:Pandora Carrollon wrote:Look guys-
The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.
...
There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts. Since you mention it .. Problem A ) is CODE uses what miners consider a flaw in CONCORD mechanics to pull them away from the belt using suicide ships and kill the mining ship with another .. i mean .. atm , there is nothing to protect the miners from ganking in high sec. The flaw in Concord mechanics is even on the web in ganking web sites in clear detail on how to use it to kill miners. ATM there is NO security in hi sec at all. A DEV even mentioned " you accept PVP the moment you undock. " I mean .. ok .. let's be straight here .. we're manufacturing and mining and making **** to go to markets and have spent unbelievable time to get mining boosts skills for fleet boosts. We spent years of time getting " skills " up to be able to do this ****. Making the stuff that you see in the markets takes time and dedication. Resource extraction , mining , PI , research , manufacturing ,material efficiency .. tons of skills and time spent working hard to give you ships , modules , equipment that are needed for PvP and to be able to self sustain mining requirements for equipment. This is all based with the ability to get base materials , resources , extracted . Now every time you get a chance to , for some unknown reason , you come in with changes that have a negative effect on resource extraction when what you want to do is balance the PvP and battle operations. When you take away the ability for a player to boost the miners in a system while you're docked in a POS you take away the possibility of the player that goes to work to use his account , game time he payed for . It's his business to leave the client opened all day , you also take away the extra yield that the miners can extract . POS boosting for mining actually HELPS keeping the costs of manufacture of ships etc , down for everyone in the game. It WILL have a direct effect on the prices of stuff or if we take the hit ( again ) accounts will be closed , people WILL drop the game because we can't get anywhere ISK wise and they simply aren't interested in going PvP only , like you guys seem to be hellbent to turn the game exclusively to. Industrialists are fundamental to EVE economy, but changes that are made always end up going against our capacity to keep the market being alive and well. Specially in " high sec " ( which means nothing really ) . I would simply devide the game into two groups when making changes. Changes that affect the war, pvp side of the game ( i adore going to Spectre Fleet and RvB , so i love that PvP FvF ( fleet versust fleet ) side too , that is 100% fun and i love it ) should not come affect the industrial side automatically and always end up making the game less interresting to our industrial group . Of course we're talking mining boosting here. And so changes that you make to industry should not penalise PvP and changes to PVP should not necessarily affect industry either. Fair is fair .. And last note .. the player always looses somehow in some way. Why not for a change make changes that will actually benefit players ( PvP and Industrials ) positively and give them what they expect of a game .. fun .. and not aggravation. Thanks for listening .. /me steps off the soapbox Signed Your friendly neighborhood carebear ^^ Fuzzy ( here comes the flood of torrential critics and " carebear " insults .. better close this tab and go back to the news ; )
It's not CCP's job to protect AFK income.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
aldhura
United Miners of New Eden
103
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 08:59:43 -
[1556] - Quote
GsyBoy wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices
making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in Disagree, you would see on d scan and a toon in local going criminal. Also proper links would not get in novices where men fight.
"Men" currently with boosting alts sitting safely in a POS. Not sure these "Men" will be quiet as manly after the change. |
GsyBoy
Flames of the Phoenix
20
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 12:37:13 -
[1557] - Quote
aldhura wrote:GsyBoy wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices
making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in Disagree, you would see on d scan and a toon in local going criminal. Also proper links would not get in novices where men fight. "Men" currently with boosting alts sitting safely in a POS. Not sure these "Men" will be quiet as manly after the change.
With the criminal tab, my scanning alt may be of some use after all..... |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1142
|
Posted - 2016.10.07 10:18:24 -
[1558] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Fuzzy TheBear wrote:Pandora Carrollon wrote:Look guys-
The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.
...
There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts. Since you mention it .. Problem A ) is CODE uses what miners consider a flaw in CONCORD mechanics to pull them away from the belt using suicide ships and kill the mining ship with another .. i mean .. atm , there is nothing to protect the miners from ganking in high sec. The flaw in Concord mechanics is even on the web in ganking web sites in clear detail on how to use it to kill miners. ATM there is NO security in hi sec at all. A DEV even mentioned " you accept PVP the moment you undock. " I mean .. ok .. let's be straight here .. we're manufacturing and mining and making **** to go to markets and have spent unbelievable time to get mining boosts skills for fleet boosts. We spent years of time getting " skills " up to be able to do this ****. Making the stuff that you see in the markets takes time and dedication. Resource extraction , mining , PI , research , manufacturing ,material efficiency .. tons of skills and time spent working hard to give you ships , modules , equipment that are needed for PvP and to be able to self sustain mining requirements for equipment. This is all based with the ability to get base materials , resources , extracted . Now every time you get a chance to , for some unknown reason , you come in with changes that have a negative effect on resource extraction when what you want to do is balance the PvP and battle operations. When you take away the ability for a player to boost the miners in a system while you're docked in a POS you take away the possibility of the player that goes to work to use his account , game time he payed for . It's his business to leave the client opened all day , you also take away the extra yield that the miners can extract . POS boosting for mining actually HELPS keeping the costs of manufacture of ships etc , down for everyone in the game. It WILL have a direct effect on the prices of stuff or if we take the hit ( again ) accounts will be closed , people WILL drop the game because we can't get anywhere ISK wise and they simply aren't interested in going PvP only , like you guys seem to be hellbent to turn the game exclusively to. Industrialists are fundamental to EVE economy, but changes that are made always end up going against our capacity to keep the market being alive and well. Specially in " high sec " ( which means nothing really ) . I would simply devide the game into two groups when making changes. Changes that affect the war, pvp side of the game ( i adore going to Spectre Fleet and RvB , so i love that PvP FvF ( fleet versust fleet ) side too , that is 100% fun and i love it ) should not come affect the industrial side automatically and always end up making the game less interresting to our industrial group . Of course we're talking mining boosting here. And so changes that you make to industry should not penalise PvP and changes to PVP should not necessarily affect industry either. Fair is fair .. And last note .. the player always looses somehow in some way. Why not for a change make changes that will actually benefit players ( PvP and Industrials ) positively and give them what they expect of a game .. fun .. and not aggravation. Thanks for listening .. /me steps off the soapbox Signed Your friendly neighborhood carebear ^^ Fuzzy ( here comes the flood of torrential critics and " carebear " insults .. better close this tab and go back to the news ; ) It's not CCP's job to protect AFK income. You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture? You don't know much about highsec mining..
Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3236
|
Posted - 2016.10.07 17:36:02 -
[1559] - Quote
You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture? You don't know much about highsec mining..
Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all.[/quote]
who are you trying to fool there is a guy in my corp who AFK mines in HS with 10 alts
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1997
|
Posted - 2016.10.07 19:03:06 -
[1560] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture? You don't know much about highsec mining..
Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all. Depending on when and where you mine bumpers can be a complete non-issue. |
|
|
|
|
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 |