| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Cringeley
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2007.08.12 00:55:00 -
[1]
Is this part of a grand scheme to raise public approval for the idea of devs playing in player alliances? Because this is insane.
It's been said repeatedly and I'm going to say it again - economically there is no sense in switching from mining high ends to mining low ends just to deal with this nerf. It will still be more efficient to package the minerals and take the 20% reprocessing hit. All this is doing is imposing a drag on 0.0 economies while effecting little or no change in play style, except perhaps that alliances with large titan fleets, like BoB, may gain a 20% advantage over everyone else by jump bridging freighters full of minerals from empire to their homes. But I would be very surprised if that was the intent of the "nerf".
|
Cringeley
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:05:00 -
[2]
The other thing I really hate about this idea is that the mechanic you're using to implement is ridiculously arbitrary. Mineral compression is a factor of two things:
1) The mineral value that CCP considers items to be worth, based on their stats and abilities
2) The volume that CCP considers certain items should take up in cargo holds, based again on the item's value, function and back story
Players did their calculations on these factors and worked out that they could move minerals more efficiently by putting them into objects first. That took intelligence, and the ongoing process takes lots of time, effort, additional characters, etc.
Now you come along and say "oh we don't like what you're doing, so...hmmm...certain items can only be refined at 80% efficiency now". Why exactly? Is every refinery in the galaxy going to suffer a mysterious plant explosion and get repaired with inferior equipment that can't reprocess a jump portal generator properly? It's ridiculous, inorganic and hamfisted.
|
Cringeley
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 12:13:00 -
[3]
Wait, does any of this have to do with the fact that Dr.Eyj=G's background is in "experimental economics"? Are we being used as research subjects?
|
| |
|