Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5937
   |
Posted - 2016.12.10 08:51:34 -
[1] - Quote
On the removal of POSes:
I personally will be fine operating out of an engineering complex.
But, three years ago when I didn't have a good fraction of a trillion ISK behind me, I'd have balked at paying ~1b for a destructible engineering complex that broadcasts its location.
I think there is a need for something smaller than the lowest tier engineering complex, even if it is limited to tech 2 modules and tech 1 ships. Somewhere that a player with two billion in working capital can start to cut their teeth in manufacturing.
Presently I feel the smallest engineering complex requires you to have five to ten billion in working capital to justify its expense. The smallest POS works with two to three billion in working capital and that niche needs filling.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5938
|
Posted - 2016.12.18 21:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Thanks for all the replies here,
I just want to clarify my statements on feature parity in the context of Structures, as I don't want anyone to feel like they've been mislead! When I'm speaking about feature parity I'm generally talking about the broad high-level functionality. Let me give you a few examples of what that means:
- Provide storage for individuals, corporations and alliances.
- Allow the insurance of ships
- Allow the manufacture of T3 ships
- Allow materials to be harvested from moons
These are all examples of functionality that we're looking to replicate. You will no doubt note that these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost, timescales or security, to name a few. While some of these things may be matched, these aren't what we are discussing when we say feature parity. Such details are often things that we need to be able to change for balancing purposes.
I hope this makes sense to everyone. We really appreciate the passion that people have for structures old and new, and we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all, even if it won't always precisely match the way things were.
Thanks again
I don't think it's appropriate to term something as feature parity when many typical users cannot attain feature parity because of cost.
There is still nothing even close to a substitute for a small POS.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|