Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
234
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:50:00 -
[1531] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:he wanted feedback Those are Greyscale's words, but that might match Fozzie's stance on varying kinds of feedback. Or anyone who plans changes that some individuals disagree with. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
229
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:51:00 -
[1532] - Quote
Here's a thought - Make the nerfs to the freighters recoverable by 1 rig. So if you put on hull, cargo and agility rigs, it is basically the same as they are at present. The difference here is that you can have two of those rigs to boost the ships above their current level, so you can have them be more exceptional than now instead of simply bringing them back up to what was lost. Oh and increase the m3 of packaged capitals as needed of course. X |
Dave Stark
5891
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:55:00 -
[1533] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Daegara Odenson wrote:Little respect goes along way :) this, so much. i think it's quite unfair how much abuse fozzie is getting for proposing something that people have asked for. he wanted feedback he's getting it. tough cookie if his feelings are getting hurt.. I don't care, not like I can expect him to stick around for the next 10 yrs working on eve.. fact is I honestly think he's screwing up the game even more before he departs. it has been done plenty of times before by dev's. he reminds me of a sith right now. I don't trust him.. period.. now that's my opinion and I don't care if it makes you burst a blood vessel.
telling him his idea sucks, that might pass as feedback but people telling him to quit and go to riot etc isn't feedback. that's just flat out rude and abusive. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
209
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 10:58:00 -
[1534] - Quote
So .. on top of 50% increase in fuel cost the jump freighter gets also 50% nerf to the carrying capacity, significant nerf to the agility and reduction in ehp?
Like really? You have deep null sec regions overpopulated or what is the issue? Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:10:00 -
[1535] - Quote
The cargo rigs have twice the calibration need 100(T1) 150(T2) as all the useful armour and shield rigs 50(T1), 75(T2). The (hyperspacial) warp speed rigs are also 50/75.
Giving a themed role bonus of 50% need for the cargo rigs would make them all the same. Then a 175 calibration total for freighters would allow 2 T2 rigs or 1 T2 and 2 T1s. Lots of tradeoff possibilities. Then Fozzie wouldn't need to reduce the values as much to keep the highs within limits. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22064
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:13:00 -
[1536] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You mean the one where you accused me of trolling or the one where you accused me of spamming? No, I mean the one where you flat out said that I was trolling. I only asked if you were because you've already admitted that you're doing it once, and I only said you were spamming because you were spamming.
Quote:Correct, I misunderstood what you were implying. I thought you were trying to that because you don't believe bulkheads are unbalanced that hull tanking is viable and thus were bringing repair mods into the discussion. Maybe you should pay more attention to what I'm actually writing and less to the confused mess that's going on inside your head. That's how all your fallacies are created.
Bulkheads are hull upgrades. Their benefits are much the same as all other hull upgrades. As demonstrated, they're very weak compared to all other attempts at tanking a ship, and as such there's nothing that's in the way of making them fit like the other hull upgrades GÇö it's not suddenly going to make them overpowered since their tanking stats won't change a bit.
That aside, I also know that just because a mod rests in a certain spot in the market list doesn't mean that that is how the modules are balanced. The other hull upgrades ARENT tanking modules and are thus not balanced like they are. Bulkheads are a tank module and as such rightly have fitting requirements even though in the current meta their benefit is woefully overpowered to their fitting cost.
Quote:I have no idea what you trying to say here. But at least we agree one one thing: Expanders are not tanking modules and bulkheads are. I'm saying that your illustration only proves that the modules that expand your HP buffer are not part of the tanking arsenal on cap ships. Your argument doesn't work for dreadnoughts because you're not fitting it like a dreadnought; for the same reason, your argument doesn't work for freigthers since they would follow the same fitting philosophy. You haven't demonstrated any kind of balance problem; you've demonstrated that fitting a ship incorrectly yields poor results. If we instead use the proper arsenal for tanking a capship, we quickly see how woefully underpowered bulkheads are compared to the alternative options.
Quote:So on point: *Sigh* Right, do you really think someone thats been in game since 2005 would actually fit a capship that way? What I actually proved was that in terms of their fitting costs that they give orders of magnitudes more effective HP than comparable modules. So you argument is a strawman fallacy. If no-one fits a capship that way, you think there might be a reason for it? Do you also think there might be a reason why they don't fit your supposedly GÇ£overpoweredGÇ¥ bulkheads either?
No, you didn't prove that because you didn't use comparable modules. By picking a capship, you disqualified any kind of raw buffer expansion from being part of the discussion, be it armour plates or shield extenders. If you want to compare against those, use a ship and fit that actually makes use of those modules like, say, a BC or a BS.
If you're going to use a capship as your testing bench, you'll notice that all modules on it are percentage based. You'll also quickly notice that bulkheads give pitiful percentages compared to the other modules. Finally, you'll notice that bulkheads have massively inflated fitting costs compared to many of those modules, especially once you factor in the percentage bonuses they give.
Quote:So lets look at another comparable example. If you were to make a similar fit comparison and did just invuls and extenders and then did a DCU and bulkheads, the outcome is still the same. Orders of magnitudes better buffs than comparable.
1 DCU t2 4 bulkheads t2 1.3mil effective hp boost
1 t2 invul 4 t2 large extenders 164k effective hp boost That's not a comparable example. That's you making a nonsensical comparison between a pretty stupid fit and a completely idiotic fit. Let's provide an actual point of comparison instead.
1 DCU II 3 Invuln II 1.72mil EHP. Far more tank for far less fitting space and far fewer wasted slots.
The point is this: bulkheads' percentage-based boost is the norm for cap ships, and is in fact far lower than what you get from conventional tanking methods. This actually holds true for subcaps as well, where relative buffer size, higher resists, and higher value on other low-slot modules makes the small increase in hull HP a mere afterthought GÇö something you might squeeze in if you have nothing better to do. It certainly isn't overpowered GÇö the fact that you have to use a failfit to even begin to give the appearance of bulkheads being better shows this with utmost clarity.
We don't even have to use fits to see this. Simple maths will do. GÇó Bulkhead GÇö +20% hull EHP, infers penalties on the ship, 40/1 fitting cost. GÇó DCII GÇö +150% hull EHP, +18% armour EHP, +14% shield EHP, +¦ cap draw, 30/1 fitting cost. GÇó Invuln II GÇö +43% shield EHP, decent cap draw, 44/1 fitting cost. GÇó EANM II GÇö +33% armour EHP, no cap draw, 36/1 fitting cost.
Well look at thatGǪ lowest bonus, second highest fitting cost, significant penalties. Yes, that combination just screams overpowered.
So: since every sensible option on a capship yields better tank for fitting space anyway (and fitting space is not something they lack so differences there are minute); since all other hull upgrades cost 0/0; since subcaps only ever fit bulkheads because they have a slot and some CPU left over; since subcaps also yield far better tank using other modules in their fewer lowslots; there is nothing that becomes imbalanced by removing the fitting costs for bulkheads as well. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
527
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:18:00 -
[1537] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Use thisAnd keep in mind that this is not limited to suicide Ganks alone. The total number of (Jump) Freighter kills in Highsec from 23.04.2013 to 24.04.2014 (therefore excluding Burn Jita) is 2,385. A daily average of 6,5. But this one doesn't count.
Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:27:00 -
[1538] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Darkblad wrote:Use thisAnd keep in mind that this is not limited to suicide Ganks alone. The total number of (Jump) Freighter kills in Highsec from 23.04.2013 to 24.04.2014 (therefore excluding Burn Jita) is 2,385. A daily average of 6,5. But this one doesn't count. Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? Either or under criminal timer. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11685
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:30:00 -
[1539] - Quote
Impressive. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
607
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:32:00 -
[1540] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Darkblad wrote:Use thisAnd keep in mind that this is not limited to suicide Ganks alone. The total number of (Jump) Freighter kills in Highsec from 23.04.2013 to 24.04.2014 (therefore excluding Burn Jita) is 2,385. A daily average of 6,5. But this one doesn't count. Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? Either or under criminal timer.
It can only be under a criminal timer, CONCORD doesn't care about/shoot at pilots just because they have -10 sec status. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:32:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? CONCORD doesn't care about sec status, only about recent criminal acts. It was either a timer or a ship swap that went wrong. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Lord'Eirik
The Brimstone Society
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:33:00 -
[1542] - Quote
This is a nice little gift to the freighter gankers, i bet the gankers will be extatic when they see the first killmail on the freighter kill with t2 cargo rigs to 725mill isk each that even helped them by reducing armor 5%+ armor each rig!
1 lowslot on freighters (reducing cargo by 27.5%) would have been good for freighter pilots, this rig idea is only a nerf and a kick in the face to those players that keep the game running and a gift to those only logging on to get a few easy kills before they log off to play other games!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11685
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:34:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Lord'Eirik wrote:This is a nice little gift to the freighter gankers, i bet the gankers will be extatic when they see the first killmail on the freighter kill with t2 cargo rigs to 725mill isk each that even helped them by reducing armor 5%+ armor each rig!
1 lowslot on freighters (reducing cargo by 27.5%) would have been good for freighter pilots, this rig idea is only a nerf and a kick in the face to those players that keep the game running and a gift to those only logging on to get a few easy kills before they log off to play other games!
You do know that low slot would mean a huge nerf to freighter hp right? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
stoicfaux
4840
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:45:00 -
[1544] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lord'Eirik wrote:This is a nice little gift to the freighter gankers, i bet the gankers will be extatic when they see the first killmail on the freighter kill with t2 cargo rigs to 725mill isk each that even helped them by reducing armor 5%+ armor each rig!
1 lowslot on freighters (reducing cargo by 27.5%) would have been good for freighter pilots, this rig idea is only a nerf and a kick in the face to those players that keep the game running and a gift to those only logging on to get a few easy kills before they log off to play other games!
You do know that low slot would mean a huge nerf to freighter hp right? Worse. It would mean a "mandatory" DCU II module that you would have to click after each stargate jump. It's worse than mining, in that strip miners have a fixed cycle time, whereas warping and jumping don't.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
210
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:45:00 -
[1545] - Quote
Taking a quick look at numbers. Taking your average route (~30 ly, say eurgrana to C6 in dronelands) currently JF max skills will burn 25k fuel, after fuel consumption increase it will be approx 37.5k meaning price increase from 30mil to 45 mil (1200 per isotope) one way trip (twice that for there and back). With 2x T2 rigs (~2 bil atm) this would mean ~120 isk/m3 for one way trip. With roqual the price is atm 102 isk/m3 but if the Roqual fuel consumption is increased as well it will be 153 isk/m3 (but do note that ore compression arrays will be present in empire POS'es as well and Roqual has 250k ore bay). Anyway these changes suck - all they mean is a 2 bil expenditure for all JF owners as cargo expander rigs are the only ones that make any sense on a JF. In a nutshell nothing changes other than slower align speed for JF's plus a mandatory 2 bil expenditure. Not a lot of choice in here - is it. Roqual will not be far behind or will be slightly better than JF per m3 (do not remeber if Roqual fuel consumption was increased as well, but probably was so it would be approx 20..25% worse isk/m3 if ore bay is empty, however industrials loaded with ammo might make some sense in its ship maint bay).
Roqual is far more survivable though (cloak + overloaded mwd trick, for example, some ECM drones, etc) and also somewhat cheaper ship. If it's also economical will depends on if ORE bay will be used but it might be new FOTM for supercap mineral hauling with JF only used for doing the last hisec -> low sec jump to avoid the gate. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
578
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:54:00 -
[1546] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing.
I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:56:00 -
[1547] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Dave Stark
5891
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:09:00 -
[1548] - Quote
Tippia wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? yeah, what are we getting for a 40% nerf? |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
210
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:15:00 -
[1549] - Quote
Tippia wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what?
I would presume for ability to fit full rack of T2 rigs for getting that 40% back. And ofc a minor agility reduction as a "tradeoff" Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Dave Stark
5891
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:15:00 -
[1550] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Tippia wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? I would presume for ability to fit full rack of T2 rigs for getting that 40% back. And ofc a minor agility reduction as a "tradeoff"
except we already have that.
so again, what are we getting for a 40% gun nerf? |
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
210
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:19:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote:Tippia wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? I would presume for ability to fit full rack of T2 rigs for getting that 40% back. And ofc a minor agility reduction as a "tradeoff" except we already have that. so again, what are we getting for a 40% gun nerf?
The same warm feeling a JF pilot is getting from fitting these nice T2 rigs for getting back where it was. Like the fuel consumption increase would not have been enough to poke the smaller entities in the eye. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Dave Stark
5891
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:21:00 -
[1552] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote:Tippia wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? I would presume for ability to fit full rack of T2 rigs for getting that 40% back. And ofc a minor agility reduction as a "tradeoff" except we already have that. so again, what are we getting for a 40% gun nerf? The same warm feeling a JF pilot is getting from fitting these nice T2 rigs for getting back where it was. Like the fuel consumption increase would not have been enough to poke the smaller entities in the eye.
you haven't answered the question.
if you're going to nerf guns by 40%, what is being given to players? |
Purpleshadez
Mercurialis Inc.
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:24:00 -
[1553] - Quote
6bil for the hull, 1.2bil for 2 T2 cargo rigs on a JF JUST to give it a max of 4% cargo hold bonus but around 10k less EHP and 5sec slower aline speed???
why??
i thought this expansion was to boost the industry not to nerf it, so why change the freighters at all???
Too Proud to Beg, Too Stubon to Try-á |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11685
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:53:00 -
[1554] - Quote
Purpleshadez wrote:6bil for the hull, 1.2bil for 2 T2 cargo rigs on a JF JUST to give it a max of 4% cargo hold bonus but around 10k less EHP and 5sec slower aline speed???
why??
i thought this expansion was to boost the industry not to nerf it, so why change the freighters at all???
People demanded rigs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
129
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:53:00 -
[1555] - Quote
Mar Drakar wrote:Kids how about you stop crying and deal with it.
back the day there weren't even carriers to jump around, and we dealt with it. Then carriers came and it became much easier then JFs came and it became "whatever"
imo this nerf isn't going far enough, and the very concept of multiple consecutive jump drive activations should be nerfed by logarithmic scale.
CCP, please MAKE NEW EDEN BIG AGAIN .
This step is a step in good direction.
"Back in the day," you didn't have to worry about region locked moon goo. Back in the day T2 prices were ridiculously high. Thanks to invention and the proliferation of JF, you can use t2 ships and modules with out paying an obscene amount for them. You are welcome btw.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11685
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:55:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Carniflex wrote: The same warm feeling a JF pilot is getting from fitting these nice T2 rigs for getting back where it was. Like the fuel consumption increase would not have been enough to poke the smaller entities in the eye.
you haven't answered the question. if you're going to nerf guns by 40%, what is being given to players? That was the answer. The "warm feeling". The same thing the JF pilots are getting :)
Thats not the answer to the question asked.
Freighters will be able to beat the current freighter in cargo capacity or tank or warp speed ect. There are getting something out of these nerfs.
So what would we get for a 40% nerf in guns? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Big Dallocort
The Killer Kangaroos
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:00:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Losing 200,000 from my obelisk, not happy |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
418
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:06:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Below is the type of person that I and many others think that Fozzie will listen to:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing.
Here is the sort of person that he should instead listen to:
Dareth Astrar wrote:It concerns me that to address a few points, you have made such massive structural changes to the hauling backbone that keeps this game running.
I was concerned with the coming industrial changes, but willing to see them in practice on SiSi for a while before making final comments.
We may be a small corporation, but we had already adopted an approach of attempting to perform industry outside of a major hub. The problem has always been hauling the massive quantities of materials around to actually make it possible.
One of our regular builds used to comprise of the following:
Tritanium1,464,196,468 Pyerite 291,120,685 Mexallon81,465,340 Isogen 15,966,498 Nocxium3,588,315 Zydrine 912,678 Megacyte460,246
1,857,710,230 total units. 18,577,102.3 m3 volume. Charon's Maxed Pilots (which we needed): 981,250 m3 Total Loads: 18.93, so 19 round trips to collect minerals
New Charon Max Load before rigs: 687,500 m3 Total Loads: 27.02, so 28 round trips. (47.37% increase in runs!!!!)
I disagree with those that say just rig it up and shut-up. Industry isn't as profitable as people seem to think, a point I may discuss greater later.
Realistically you have to make the profit to pay for the costs you are incurring. Nothing new, just the basics of any business, so realistically it's only 3xT1 Capital rigs that will be afforded regularly. So what is that impact:
New Charon Max Load with 3xT1 Capital rigs: 1,045,602 m3 Total Loads: 17.76, so 18 rounded up. Already much slower to move then 6 months ago with the warp speed and travel changes!
So with all these changes, with additional cost per ship used, we save 1 round trip. I'm sorry, but the practicality of the claimed benefit is being somewhat over claimed here, as everyone is only looking at the T2 rigged max end results only.
After many years of performing our building on a fortnightly basis, we long ago realized the time and effort, lack of fun and lacking of reliable profitability (by the time big items and build batches came out, market depreciation and peoples inability to do basic maths by consistently just undercut the lowest on market in Jita already, often negated the profit to barely average out to 1-5% after sales costs) actually had most people migrate to running Incursions or anything else to make a living AND try to get enjoyment from, what is after all a Game, and not to have it be like work which they were trying to escape!
It strikes me that there were a few things with these changes that CCP focused on, and really forgot the cause-effect of all others.
* EHP were high. Fine, so they obviously wanted to increase ganking of freighters in high sec. Not something I think is sensible given they are the backbone supporting the economy, but fine. * Didn't want certain things to fit into freighters after the changes. Fine, the simple option is increase the volume of those things so that they don't. * Give freighters an ability to customize a load-outs. This could have been done more easily with module slots, and at a far reduced cost to the pilots of those ships. The reason I think they did this with rigs is they realize they've created a massive array of Capital Rig BPO's that are never ever used! There are reasons for that, examine those before assuming this is a sensible option for customization.
So why did people keep asking for rigs? I'm not going to lie, we would have liked to have seen bigger cargo holds, but with the profits being made it also has to factor in the additional costs of any change affecting the business.
Practical terms that were regular reasons: * Size of ships packages were high. Some stupidly so, for example you could only fit 1 Orca in a charon, as they were 500k m3. Personally I would have preferred to have seen reductions in silly sizes before reductions in hauling sizes. * CCP keep missing/ignoring the industrial points: Ore compression is one thing, but actually what is needed is Mineral compression, so that much more can be moved in smaller number of trips. This is still lacking, and the means by which players did this with modules is now less viable, and post the industrial patch not at all viable considering the reprocessing of modules and items given the massive losses. * Hauling is painfully slow now, and exceptionally boring for a game, nearly as boring as mining!
Sadly, all things considered it just strikes me that over the past year all the changes CCP keep making are to increase player time trying to make money, reduce the quantity they can make, and increase the cost of everything else so having fun in PvP is much greater end cost to the economy.
I know I joined for the PvP and found Industry to be an interesting mental pursuit, but with competition coming from other games in the coming year or so, I think CCP may be wise to remember this is a game for entertainment and enjoyment, not yet another form of personal work.
I've already stopped playing as much in PvP, currently not going to waste my time on industrial elements that aren't worth the time invested in terms of results and performance in isk growth, and sadly looking at these changes highly doubtful I'll bother wasting time with the new industrial changes, which will also likely be bringing additional material consumption with it....
Don't be a turd and follow the herd Instead be a Hero at Hub Zero |
Mag's
the united
17280
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:15:00 -
[1559] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Below is the type of person that I and many others think that Fozzie will listen to: TheGunslinger42 wrote:Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.
Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing. Here is the sort of person that he should instead listen to: Dareth Astrar wrote:It concerns me ....snip... Funny thing is, Gunslinger was also a part of the group that informed those asking for fitting changes, what would happen. So your idea on who you think was/is listened to, is way off.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:23:00 -
[1560] - Quote
Dracvlad
Very well put. I'm curious when CCP is going to realize that you can only force so much PVP action on industrialist and increased mineral costs before they just say screw this and throw in the towel. I already gave a break down how this is clearly a nerf to freighters (despite what others may say) in my earlier article.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4613601#post4613601
If anything I had hoped than this change would justify the freighter capacities as you could fill the damn thing and put enough tank to justify what was inside. Sadly the freighter went the way of the of the "other" t1 industrial ship post change. (mammouth, bestower, itty V, tyra) which are rarely used other than nitch roles now because they increased their bay size but gave them zero tank. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |