|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Edek Hawker
Serpent Sun Roadhouse Regulars
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 02:05:57 -
[1] - Quote
Sassums wrote:So if I am reading this correctly you are continuing to cater to the null sec folks while WH people receive no love.
T3 was our only production option in WH space that didnt require us to leave the WH to produce - with gas reaction BPO's requiring Ice products we will now either have to go out to HS to purchase said ice or roll until we find a shattered that has ice belts (that will almost always guarantee a gank)
T3 Production should continue to be a W-Space product and should not require K-Space components.
If this is changing then W-Space should be allowed to harvest resources from the moons of the systems we inhabit.
If not - remove the stupid ice requirement from T3 reactions.
HEAR! HEAR! Though unlike a lot of other wormholers I could care less about moon harvesting if its a null sec/low sec niche that is fine let it be I personally have no problem with NOT being able to mine moon goo in w-space. Now about adding ice products to T3 reactions.. T3 production is w-spaces niche either 1) Don't mess with it leave out the ice products and let things stand as they are OR 2) Add ice field ore anomolies to EVERY w-space system's randomizer for anomolies to appear For the Gent above is correct in that having to roll a connection for a shattered WH is ridiculous and even if you do find one mining ice there is a gank fest waiting to happen. It will be much more secure to be able to mine ice in your home system. I'm not a whiner and I'm happy to work with the upcoming changes just please use a little common sense when making production requirement changes to T3 manufacturing. T3 production is already a high end product with a high skill set requirement both to manufacture and fly them. They have a decently high price tag to go with them. Lets not make them ridiculously hard to produce from homegrown materials per say. Niches are good from the business perspective, The T3 production and trade actually encourages W-space to interact with K-space for I have to get my finished product to market if I can't finish my product in w-space or it takes longer to make in in w-space then It will be longer until I go to k-space. |
Edek Hawker
Serpent Sun Roadhouse Regulars
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 13:48:48 -
[2] - Quote
Sullen Decimus wrote:Locke Beulve wrote:Quote:The existing reactions will be converted to new blueprints that enable the reaction process in the new system, and new reactions will include small amounts of ice products in each run to compensate for the lower number of starbase towers needed for advanced industry. Whoaaaaaa there. Already ice products are required to be used to fuel these structures, which makes use of ice mats. There's no need to go overboard and make the fuel block prices skyrocket even more then they already are from shortages of Strontium. There is huge potential for these new structures, but lets not reinvent the wheel here. This will be absolutely necessary. You can now essentially do ALL of your reactions in a single structure. Without this a huge portion of the isotope demand in the game would die as one of the single largest consumers of isotopes is reaction farms.
Why are we trying to keep the price of ice products artificially high? All of the new structures if fully fitted use more fuel blocks than the POS equivalent of them. If we finally get a structure that uses less fuel than the POS equivalent then its about time! If you continue to insist that we need to keep the status quo on ice production then look to booster charges ice products had their buff there. Last but not least If CCP only removes the ice products requirement from T3 reactions but leaves them on the rest I would be completely satisfied... see I can compromise. :) |
Edek Hawker
Serpent Sun Roadhouse Regulars
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 14:55:43 -
[3] - Quote
Querns wrote:Edek Hawker wrote: If CCP only removes the ice products requirement from T3 reactions but leaves them on the rest I would be completely satisfied... see I can compromise. :)
Considering T3 reactions burn ice in the form of POS fuel currently, no, there's no chance that it would be removed.
Oh? So the refinery will NOT be using fuel blocks *sarcasm Please try again goon...
|
Edek Hawker
Serpent Sun Roadhouse Regulars
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 17:42:05 -
[4] - Quote
Querns wrote:Edek Hawker wrote:Querns wrote:Edek Hawker wrote: If CCP only removes the ice products requirement from T3 reactions but leaves them on the rest I would be completely satisfied... see I can compromise. :)
Considering T3 reactions burn ice in the form of POS fuel currently, no, there's no chance that it would be removed. Oh? So the refinery will NOT be using fuel blocks *sarcasm Please try again goon... Sure. Since reactions are a RAM activity, a single facility can perform a number of reactions approaching infinity. (Cost index goes here.) Because of this, you don't need to erect a tower for each gas reaction (or pair,) you just need one. This drastically reduces the fuel cost of running any kind of reaction, be it WH gas or otherwise. To keep the use of ice from plummeting, all reactions must include some ice usage.
I admit that I am not an economic expert I am more of a 2+2=4 kind of guy. The results of ice products price falling to my perspective means that either 1 of 2 things happen. 1) The price of T2/T3 products come down hopefully making the ships in particular closer to insurance payouts meaning more people can afford them easier meaning more are available to be blown up more often. I don't see this as a bad thing. 2) The price of T2/T3 products stays the same meaning the industrialist that make them make more profit allowing them to expand their operations which again I don't see as a bad thing.
This perspective does not include any projections on the amount of moon goo available for manufacturing from the new mining operations put forth in the Dev Blog I'm only speaking of the differences I see resulting from the inclusion of ice products in the reaction process. |
|
|
|