EVE Search - CCP, Where are you going wiith all of these changes?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP, Where are you going wiith all of these changes?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 96 post(s)
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:26:00 - [1] Busy day, Zulu? A couple of questions: As decryptors are being removed from static plexes and demand is set to increase from a new wave of T2 ships, are the number of hacking sites slated to be increased in order to keep pace? Are the individual hacking sites having their decryptor availability increased? Has the econ genius taken a hard look at the impact of the decryptor changes and what they will do to the overall market? Has he also looked at the impact of increased demand for Mechanical Engineering datacores, and how that will affect both the overall datacore market and invention in general? Considering the upcoming changes, do you consider ship invention to be balanced for T2 ships which have BPOs?
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:46:00 - [2] Originally by: CCP Zulupark I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances. The thinking being that the cap use is the trade-off for being essentially ammo-less? BTW, I know it's been said before in the thread, but TY for the responses, guys. One of the main reasons I stay with this game when I've already ditched close to a dozen other MMOs is the developer-community interaction. While you may not do what I want or what I agree with all the time (buff Amarr now), you're still keeping an open dialog with us who dissent.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:51:00 - [3] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Wizzkidy Edited by: Wizzkidy on 09/11/2007 11:47:02 Zulupark I have read your responces to the Amarr issues and quite frankly I'm suprised that AFTER ALL THIS TIME CCP is still unable to "decide" what Amarr need. That isnt fair. Even I have trouble deciding what Amarr need. The situation isnt so simple for a number of reasons. You also don't derive your paycheck from being able to answer that sort of question. Someone at CCP does. Can said paycheck be justified?
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:13:00 - [4] Originally by: Jana N'dori 2. The UI quite blatantly sucks. You cant see what module is active on which target. You have no idea how much is left of a modules cycle. You can barely see if a module is active or not. Just to name a few of the problems. And this is something every single player use when then play. It really, really deserves to be fixed. They're working on the UI at the moment. The drone and fleet overhauls are a big step in the right direction. Really, the best thing they can do is make the UI semi-open source. Strictly limit automation, but let us modify the rest of it. I can name between 30 and 50 UI changes I could use off the top of my head; instead of putting that sort of demand on in-house coders, let the community do the grunt work for you.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:45:00 - [5] Zulu: I know you're busy and being inundated, just calling attention to post #471 in case you missed it. Thanks for all your time here, mate.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:34:00 - [6] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Amarria Black Busy day, Zulu? A couple of questions: As decryptors are being removed from static plexes and demand is set to increase from a new wave of T2 ships, are the number of hacking sites slated to be increased in order to keep pace? Are the individual hacking sites having their decryptor availability increased? Has the econ genius taken a hard look at the impact of the decryptor changes and what they will do to the overall market? Has he also looked at the impact of increased demand for Mechanical Engineering datacores, and how that will affect both the overall datacore market and invention in general? Considering the upcoming changes, do you consider ship invention to be balanced for T2 ships which have BPOs? read this , and the blog as well. We would not increase supply to 'keep pace' with demand unless it was in severe shortage as decryptors are still regarded as luxury items and are also tiered by rarity. As for mechanical engineering datacores, we are still looking at options which may range from changing modules based on mech. engineering to electrical engineering to start of with and leaving ships to be the main item for mech. engineering to changing their balance in a much wider method. Also, supply and demand being the forces they are, appear to be working quite well and the prices are falling across the board currently whilst global player supplies are increasing rapidly. Thx Chrono for your prompt reply, and thx Zulu for bumping it to the proper party. As suggested above, adding more L4 Mechanical Engineering agents per faction would go a long way toward filling the demand side, as would your suggestion to move mods away from Mechanical cores as a primary invention component. The supply of decryptors issue seems to be addressed by your linked post, in that the supply should stay somewhat stable, but not abusably farmable. Assuming you continue to improve exploration, obtaining decryptors shouldn't be an issue for people who could previously handle the static plexes. As to the current trends of T2 ship availability and price, surely you realize that this trend cannot hold. With twenty new T2 ships being introduced, demand for datacores will only go up. Compound this with the steadily increasing prices (and soon, scarcity) of decryptors, and you're looking at significant increases in invention costs across the board. Were the market completely invention driven, this wouldn't be an issue, but T2 BPO holders act as a spoiler to artificially deflate prices below a sustainable level for inventors. Again, if Dr. Eyjog has not been made aware of the breadth of the upcoming changes then I strongly suggest he be brought to speed, and if so, then his expert analysis would go a long way to quelling any concerns over the upcoming changes. On a tangent, excellent choice of Econ Genius. I can tell from the quality of his Econ blogs so far that he definitely knows what he's talking about.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:25:00 - [7] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Amarria Black nice points I have a blog due out in next few days covering yet more changes to invention which should ease some of your concerns. The next invention blog after that one will look at what the future holds for invention and starting the ball rolling on a path for invention to evolve towards in the next year. Something which some players are already talking about here to link a current example. Thanks a lot for the links and the responses. I'm looking forward to your future blogs and posts. You guys seem to at least be on the same page as I, which by itself is reassuring. I'd not happened across the game dev forum post, as I regard that as the place where good ideas go to die. -_^
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:27:00 - [8] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Uchuu It's with changing ammo! Are there any plans to implement a simple shortcut function (like heat) so that you can change ammo of a stack with one click, like overloading a stack for heat? it's coming on swift wings after trinity and yes, it is something we all want and will get! You just became my new best friend.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:14:00 - [9] Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Rells What I think CCP should do it to make each race of ship depend on a different secondary datacore (secondary to the starship engineering). This would not only boost the price for non mechanical engineering datacores but also cause more diversity in the market. Once that change is in then all the modules should balance out the datacores demand. In my mind, as Racial Starship Engineering describes hull construction, there is no need for mechanical engineering datacores which again describes hull construction (bad thing to have two for the same). Better to add datacore related to racial propulsion systems, IMO. And/or racial sensor emphasis.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.