| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lady Naween
Good Vs. Neutral
Stop Exploding You Cowards
18
   |
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
in the faction warfare they said they where looking at (nothing set in stone) that they wanted to move datacores to the faction warfare militia store instead of our current system.
seems like an interesting system.. not sure what i think atm myself... |
Darrow Hill
Vodka and Vice
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
...the hell?
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
658
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Not move fully, just limit the amount you get from R&D agents and ad them to FW store too, im not to optimistic about that  |
Borun Tal
Border Zone Combat
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:in the faction warfare they said they where looking at (nothing set in stone) that they wanted to move datacores to the faction warfare militia store instead of our current system.
seems like an interesting system.. not sure what i think atm myself...
Link, please. |
Lady Naween
Good Vs. Neutral
Stop Exploding You Cowards
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Borun Tal wrote:Lady Naween wrote:in the faction warfare they said they where looking at (nothing set in stone) that they wanted to move datacores to the faction warfare militia store instead of our current system.
seems like an interesting system.. not sure what i think atm myself... Link, please.
was on the life feed |
Dinger
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:in the faction warfare they said they where looking at (nothing set in stone) that they wanted to move datacores to the faction warfare militia store instead of our current system.
seems like an interesting system.. not sure what i think atm myself...
Such a move makes no logical sense, the Faction warfare corps' primary focus is the prosecution of the lowsec conflicts between the empires, not Research and Development.
I understand the desire, even the need to remove the passive acquisition of datacores as ocours under the current mechanics, however in order to remain constant with the current backstory, not to mention a lot of people's playstyles, an active acquisition should still be centred around the existing R&D corporations. |
Kyr Evotorin
Psycho Tech Industries
Interstellar Hobos
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate <--- listen to him, second post after op...
OP... you made me sigh. Future reference, the public responds to what they hear and assumptions that are made more than anything else. to make such a broad post without making sure you were fully aware of the situation is to mis-inform those that... oh wait... I guess it's ok then... since I don't like people who make assumptions like that... but IN ANY CASE:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=85163
"GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores."
Key words here are "GENERAL DECREASE"
Basically... be more informative, or you help the community to flutter in the wind when they are taking your information and talking to other, more well informed friends/subject/minions/spies/whathaveyou.... sigh. |
Rengerel en Distel
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kyr Evotorin wrote:Akrasjel Lanate <--- listen to him, second post after op... OP... you made me sigh. Future reference, the public responds to what they hear and assumptions that are made more than anything else. to make such a broad post without making sure you were fully aware of the situation is to mis-inform those that... oh wait... I guess it's ok then... since I don't like people who make assumptions like that... but IN ANY CASE: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=85163"GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores." Key words here are "GENERAL DECREASE" Basically... be more informative, or you help the community to flutter in the wind when they are taking your information and talking to other, more well informed friends/subject/minions/spies/whathaveyou.... sigh.
Perhaps the OP's goal was to drive up the price on datacores so they can unload their stock? That's more the tactic in Market Discussions, but you never know.
Don't assume bad intent, when stupidity is the much more likely cause. |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1298
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
This seems like a horrible idea. I have a healthy T2 business, spent tons of time getting my R&D agents where I can support that and I have no interest in participating in FW. In fact what industrialist is interested in FW?
Adding them to FW? OK, sure. Taking them away from R&D agents No way in heck!
Issler |
Zircon Dasher
86
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
This is a wonderful idea!
Much <3 to the new CCP |
|
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
1298
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
So what would an R&D agent be used for I wonder?
Issler |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
318
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:56:00 -
[12] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:So what would an R&D agent be used for I wonder?
Issler
Reduction, not removal.
As long as the market value doesn't change significantly, I'm not too bothered. I'm not a huge fan of almost entirely passive income.
FuzzWork Enterprises
http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Mavnas
The Scope
Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Borun Tal wrote:Lady Naween wrote:in the faction warfare they said they where looking at (nothing set in stone) that they wanted to move datacores to the faction warfare militia store instead of our current system.
seems like an interesting system.. not sure what i think atm myself... Link, please.
So massive skill points for a small amount of passive income -> massive skill points for a miniscule amount of passive income. Well, that's at least one account I need to cancel, possibly two. |
Granix Uvelian
Epsilon Inc
STORM.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:49:00 -
[14] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:So what would an R&D agent be used for I wonder?
Issler
If they go through with a 'general decrease' in the amount of datacores which can be earned actively from R&D agents then they should offer a way to 'actively' earn them from R&D agents. C'mon.
Not sure what FW has to do with R&D of private companies. Roden Shipyards operates in multiple sovereign spaces, as well as many of the research based NPC corps. If anything one could make the case that while they align primarily with a single faction the non-statist NPC corps try to maintain a sense of neutrality between factions.
What we really need is a way to actively obtain datacores. Heck I would love to see more exploration sites which drop datacores not just decryptors. That'd be a start. But some form of active 'research' mini-game would work too.
My 2 ISK for now |
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:05:00 -
[15] - Quote
Kyr Evotorin wrote:
"GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores."
Key words here are "GENERAL DECREASE"
Key words here, "CCP RETARDS"
Its obvious from the quote that CCP want to reduce the reward people make from the countless hours of grinding standings to R&D corps, they dont make any reference to compensation.
FW and T2 production are separate professions, and it doesnt make any sense to link them.
CCP if you want to fix past mistakes, fix the T2 BPO issue first, then start with the inventors.
Or try playing the game and doing some industry (or talking to people who do industry) before making decisions about it. |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
P O D
71
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:13:00 -
[16] - Quote
I've done the maths, and datacore farming is already a very low income.
I can't see how they could lower it.
And it won't change the fact that 00 T2 producters cannot build stuff on their own (datacores found in RADAR sites are a joke). |
Bennet Am
Seekers of Oblivion
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 23:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
As I recall. The datacores in question were faction starship engineering. |
Thawed Corpse
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 07:26:00 -
[18] - Quote
Arbitrarily reducing the rewards of research is a very bad idea, to take away what people have earned.
Unless, of course, they are going to combine it with taking away all the tech II BPOs that some people use as their cash cows.
The two mechanics are very similar, being things that were acquired, and also they provide easy permanent isk flow once the hard work (or lucky draw, or investment) was done.
If CCP does in fact decide to nerf both of these things, I just hope they do it slowly and over time, so that those that are losing value, can recover at least some of their loss. |
Llyandrian
Livestock Science Exchange
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 09:21:00 -
[19] - Quote
This will most likely only effect the faction data cores, Faction starship engineering. It don't make any sense to limit the rest.
It will push up the price of T2 ships which should make T3 more attractive to players. |
Kyr Evotorin
Psycho Tech Industries
Interstellar Hobos
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:22:00 -
[20] - Quote
Not like many are going to take the time to read this, but... incoming rage/logic/wtfcommunity post.
I joined this community on the single idea that, you couldn't be a ****** to play this game. It has the best weed whacker I've seen to date. Is it in our nature to be annoying as well? I mean really... ~75% of the people I've met in Eve can't stop complaining. One change here and there and the whole world is falling apart for you guys.
May I explain some logic to you cowards that think the market will go down the shitter once a change like this goes through...?
Honestly, would you really want the RP gains to remain the same. Think about the market. If the RP and Datacores remained the same, but CCP implemented the FW LP Datacores, prices would drop. They are reducing the amounts of datacores that can be put out to maintain the pricing that is in place to the best of their ability. Sure, adding FW Datacores seems a little strange, but you could toss in some lore as an argument and datacores would be justified. Obviously, the prices on datacores will change, but the goal is to limit that change. I mean... I've already iterated above this post... The word choice of the dev post was well placed.
Find something else to complain about, really.
Ten Bulls
Sorry man, the key words in my post were "General Decrease." I don't know where you learned to translate from, but I'm sure English to English is pretty straight forward.
I already explained above why the market shouldn't be too affected by this change. Just to add, people probably won't waste their time buying datacores, seeing as there are other things they will be adding for FW LP that would relate to what people want. only people with alts that need money will buy them. who would waste their time putting an alt into FW if they need money? FW is suposed to be an ISK sink. kthx.
FW is a combat Profession. T2 Production happens primarily in high sec, but the acquirement of T2 materials often happens via some form of necessary combat. One could attribute your need to see a link between the two to one small issue: Link T2 Production with half (more than) the fighting involved in the game. Factions can't fight over more than just the need to fight? Learn to read between the lines man.
The T2 BPO's are a delicate disruption to the game. People have valid arguments that work both ways. umad.
Your last comment really has no strong points, thus... this was fun!
In any case... I'm done defending CCP for the moment. I think this idea isn't 100% stupid, but it isn't a solution at all. |
|
|
Han Mizrachi
Verum Legio
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:57:00 -
[21] - Quote
Moving RP to FW doesn't fit in line with the fact many players grind out standings with all 4 races research corps, and therefore have good faction standing with all races. Although i do agree that the almost completely passive income is bad. Another point to add about FW datacores, say Caldari have more researchers than Gallente, surely its plausible that Gallente T2 ship prices could rise without affecting other races T2 ship prices... which seems bad?!
Personally i would have CCP create a whole new set of missions for R&D agents and have the ISK/LP reward replaced by RP or by actual datacores. This way budding researchers could actually use lvl 1/2/3 R&D agents to grind their standings as well. Makes the process of obtaining them active and stops researchers having to stick to one race as per the FW route.
|
Thawed Corpse
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP could also make tech II BPOs available as FW LP purchases. Just make them really expensive, so that they reduce the value of existing tech II bpo over time. As long as they are messing with one part of the invention market for tech II why stop with just datacores? I don't want to lose part of my passive income from datacores, unless I feel that someone who gains from the exact same endpoint (tech II bpc) also loses some value. If the pain is spread around to everyone, then it is easier to accept. |
Ameron Phinard
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:32:00 -
[23] - Quote
Thawed Corpse wrote:CCP could also make tech II BPOs available as FW LP purchases. Just make them really expensive, so that they reduce the value of existing tech II bpo over time.
Or crater the market and unbalance the game. |
Tebb1288
Ion Corp.
Citex Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:01:00 -
[24] - Quote
This is an absurd change. Faction Warfare should have nothing to do with tech 2 production. Sounds they wanted a way to nerf the passive income of datacores and just picked the first section of the game they redesigned to stick a new datacore method in.
If they wanted to nerf passive datacores they should remove the passive aspect, remove the cap on one mission per agent per day, and significantly increase the rp reward per datacore. Possibly tying the missions into industry, such as turning in X amount of tech 1 ship for Y amount of datacores. That would at least make sense to have an agent accept tech 1 and reward a key item to make tech 2, rather than the process be blowing up members of another faction for th ekey item for tech 2. |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:49:00 -
[25] - Quote
From the interview, it sounds like they want to tie datacores to FW so they can vary the price of cores by domiance, thus giving the players an incentive to balance FW for them, which could actually work.
The mechanic has potential, but it feels like bit of robbing peter to pay paul, and industry/PvE players are getting a little tired of always being peter, so this feels like another 'well, if you do not pew-pew then you are playing our game wrong, so we want to use your stuff to balance another area of the game'.
However, it also sounds like they have some new industry stuff in the pipline for Inferno, so we might get some new toys too. It sounds like they are doing some serious rebalancing of the economy which will, of course, produce winners and losers. I would not call myself cautiously optimistic,.. but at least cautiously curious.
I will, I admit, miss drone poo in missions. Hopefully it will be balanced with some more interesting high sec mining. There were hints that they were going to have some new ship based mechanic for harvesting T2 materials, but they might make it low/null only which would suck. |
Lady Ayeipsia
Morskoj Industries
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
Bennet Am wrote:As I recall. The datacores in question were faction starship engineering.
This seems like a bad idea. As it stands now, very few t2 ships are profitable if you have to buy the materials. If the datacores to invent increase in cost, the number of profitable t2 ships drops further. |
Marbuel
Wormhole Exploration Crew
R.E.P.O.
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:58:00 -
[27] - Quote
Having the four factional starship research datacores available from factional conflict makes more sense than the entire range, but I'm still not chuffed with the idea overall. |
DigDoug
Order of the Phoenix
IMPERIAL LEGI0N
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 04:28:00 -
[28] - Quote
Let FW have datacores and make fleet stabber bpcs randomly pop out of veldspar.
Fair trade and makes as much sense. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
73
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:18:00 -
[29] - Quote
I don't like moving the datacores to FW. I understand CCP wants FW to influence the rest of EVE and I wholeheartedly agree.
But datacores belong to the NPC research-companies and research agents. Yes they are too much of an ATM right now, but it deserves its own solution. Not tossing it into the FW pit, just to get rid of the problem.
http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:51:00 -
[30] - Quote
DigDoug wrote:Let FW have datacores and make fleet stabber bpcs randomly pop out of veldspar.
Fair trade and makes as much sense.
Hrm... you know... randomly finding 'stuff' in some 'roids could be interesting. Add some kind of optional archeology component to mining.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |