Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
560
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 17:37:00 -
[61] - Quote
Mara Pahrdi wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but: I understand your reasoning. And that's fine with stations. But if I had a choice, I'd rather take the slots on a POS. That's ofc due to my individual situation. Others may think differently here. Maybe you can take that into account when you redo POSes. Well, now that we have this new system, I can see that the slots were only a limiting factor on top of already existing limiting factor - slots based on skill. The system is actually better than before - the balance, however, is a bit off. o.0 |
Gynax Gallenor
Conquering Darkness
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 17:49:00 -
[62] - Quote
Keyran Tyler wrote: Did you considered that we play industrial precisely because we appreciate to be able to control and predict the outcome of our operations? A sandbox with rules changing constantly is not funny.
I think you might be playing the wrong game then... :)
Like Greyscale said, if you have a system that can be easily controlled and predicted, you end up with boring, optimal solutions that are no longer fun and interesting.
With the new system, the landscape will be constantly shifting and moving, and therefore, much more interesting and fun.
Fly Reckless, cos flying safe is no damn fun!
http://flyreckless.com/newsite/ |
Lister Dax
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 19:09:00 -
[63] - Quote
Joseph Soprano wrote: My guess is you'll probably use some backwater system with no stations. Anyway gl with that.
You keep thinking that then kiddo. Meanwhile my alt will carry on with busy-work in a POS, in a factory-less system a handful of jumps from a trade hub..... |
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
31
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 20:27:00 -
[64] - Quote
Oh well... it was fun while it lasted. I can't even do invention anymore at my pos so as soon as my final researchjobs are finished i will take it down... i liked doing lots of stuff myself but not to the extend of making it a fulltime job and moving all over the place. Such a shame... this is the first time in 10 years i considered not adapting but just give up on the whole damn thing. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2531
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 20:36:00 -
[65] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Pretty good clarification. Thanks.
However, I still think that the old blueprint holders have a significant advantage - at least by having blueprints that probably already stepped beyond the "high-bar" that new researchers are not willing to invest above. Especially when there are copies of those high quality blueprints flooding the market after copy speed changes.
Yes, they do. We had a straight-up trade-off: we could make the blueprint economy more stable in the long run, and nerf everyone's blueprints in the process to varying degrees, or we could accept we're giving a lot of people a leg up but ensure that people are generally getting a good deal in the short term. Our general tendency is towards the longer-term play, but in this instance we were already making seismic changes to industry gameplay, and we were concerned that a straight-up blueprint stats nerf would cause enough additional negative sentiment to discourage large numbers of industrialists and prevent the feature as a whole gaining momentum out of the gate, which could have significant negative consequences for anyone who likes to buy things. We don't like doing short-term-oriented changes but in this case the risk of "damn the torpedoes" was that they might actually sink us.
Keyran Tyler wrote:Did you considered that we play industrial precisely because we appreciate to be able to control and predict the outcome of our operations? A sandbox with rules changing constantly is not funny.
Yes, and this was another big tension throughout development. We have been trying to make industry more fulfilling by increasing the number of decisions that are made, but we're still waiting to see how many people want their industry to be fulfilling vs just want to make low-mental-effort money for various reasons. The hope is that, as the system starts to really pick up and run, people figure out where the optimizations are and we fine-tune a few things, a strong core of industrially-minded players find the new status quo keeps them strongly engaged and creates an interesting landscape for everyone else to play in, industrialist or otherwise. If it doesn't work out, we'll need to reassess.
There is also, though, a degree to which this is representative of one of the fundamental driving forces of EVE: we know that players know that the optimal setup requires perfect stability, and we try really hard to ensure that stability can never quite be achieved, because at that point you've won and the game is essentially over. I'd also like to protest that the rules of the system are entirely static: what's changing is the landscape, which is entirely driven by the action of other players, and to us that's the absolute heart of "the sandbox" in a multiplayer context. It's not interesting because you're allowed to go off and play in your own corner without regard for anyone else, it's interesting because the actions of other players keep throwing up interesting new challenges, be that through direct PvP combat or extremely indirect market dynamics. A static game gets soved and a solved game has no longevity. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23396
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 20:37:00 -
[66] - Quote
Lister Dax wrote:Joseph Soprano wrote: My guess is you'll probably use some backwater system with no stations. Anyway gl with that.
You keep thinking that then kiddo. Meanwhile my alt will carry on with busy-work in a POS, in a factory-less system a handful of jumps from a trade hub..... Ix-nay on the ecret-say auce-say. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
871
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 20:42:00 -
[67] - Quote
Greyscale, just admit it. Its the cost of Obamacare taxation (this joke only works for Americans) |
Nikolai Lachance
Happy Wheels Logistics
132
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 21:56:00 -
[68] - Quote
The empires decided that instead of really having to like you for setting up a POS in their space (faction standings), they'd let anyone do it and just charge them taxes to operate their facilities. Makes them more money.
It's a trade-off. Instead of having to do a massive grind for faction standings, you just pay to use your stuff. Much more accessible. |
Circumstantial Evidence
132
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 00:14:00 -
[69] - Quote
CCP Greyscale,
The replies you've made in this thread so far would combine well into a good addendum or follow-up dev blog to
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/principles-of-industry-in-eve-online/ |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6288
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 00:21:00 -
[70] - Quote
Nikolai Lachance wrote:The empires decided that instead of really having to like you for setting up a POS in their space (faction standings), they'd let anyone do it and just charge them taxes to operate their facilities. Makes them more money.
It's a trade-off. Instead of having to do a massive grind for faction standings, you just pay to use your stuff. Much more accessible. Next up, CONCORD starts a protection racket ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
|
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
320
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 00:55:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but:
Ultimately, you're paying fees in your starbase because that's the balance tradeoff for unlimited slots for everyone. If we take slots away we need some form of substitute (pseudo-)scarcity so that everyone in the universe doesn't just build in Jita 4-4, which would be bad for various reasons but primarily because it removes a whole lot of interesting decisions and makes the rest of the map an industrial wasteland, which is not a thing we want. We felt that scaling fees were a good solution to this, as fees were already a thing (even though they were essentially irrelevant) and because ISK is kinda the nexus of decision-making for serious industrialists. If we're going to use fees, we pretty much have to apply them everywhere, including starbases because they scale too well otherwise and we don't want to re-add pseudo-slots to stop them from being too powerful.
The lore reason is just something to the effect that (Abraxas has the real version, if I was in the office I could look it up but I'm not) CONCORD has stopped paying worker costs for capsuleer industrialists, so now you have to pay them instead. We deliberately talk in terms of workforce fees to try and reduce the cognitive dissonance of "why do I have to pay in my starbase" and "why is it the same all over the system", but obviously it's am imperfect fix.
We totally understand why people are having this reaction, though - it's your tower, why are you having to pay extra? - and it's probably an area of the design that could be adjusted to give a better result, but not obviously without trading off against reduced ease-of-use. We could, f.ex, require "workers" to be put into labs and assembly arrays as fuel, which are purchased for ISK, so you're not paying money on the job but you are paying the equivalent amount on the back end... but then you have more fuel to haul around and people generally hate doing that. Swings and roundabouts.
Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.
Anyway, like I said, just got up, trying to help, may be some crazy in the above I'm not spotting currently, sorry :)
Is the lore reason that I would pay extra in Amarr that the slave owners are asking for more Salary/Bribery or else they will relocate the workforce elsewhere? |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
666
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 02:29:00 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Pretty good clarification. Thanks.
However, I still think that the old blueprint holders have a significant advantage - at least by having blueprints that probably already stepped beyond the "high-bar" that new researchers are not willing to invest above. Especially when there are copies of those high quality blueprints flooding the market after copy speed changes. Yes, they do. We had a straight-up trade-off: we could make the blueprint economy more stable in the long run, and nerf everyone's blueprints in the process to varying degrees, or we could accept we're giving a lot of people a leg up but ensure that people are generally getting a good deal in the short term. Our general tendency is towards the longer-term play, but in this instance we were already making seismic changes to industry gameplay, and we were concerned that a straight-up blueprint stats nerf would cause enough additional negative sentiment to discourage large numbers of industrialists and prevent the feature as a whole gaining momentum out of the gate, which could have significant negative consequences for anyone who likes to buy things. We don't like doing short-term-oriented changes but in this case the risk of "damn the torpedoes" was that they might actually sink us. Keyran Tyler wrote:Did you considered that we play industrial precisely because we appreciate to be able to control and predict the outcome of our operations? A sandbox with rules changing constantly is not funny.
Yes, and this was another big tension throughout development. We have been trying to make industry more fulfilling by increasing the number of decisions that are made, but we're still waiting to see how many people want their industry to be fulfilling vs just want to make low-mental-effort money for various reasons. The hope is that, as the system starts to really pick up and run, people figure out where the optimizations are and we fine-tune a few things, a strong core of industrially-minded players find the new status quo keeps them strongly engaged and creates an interesting landscape for everyone else to play in, industrialist or otherwise. If it doesn't work out, we'll need to reassess. There is also, though, a degree to which this is representative of one of the fundamental driving forces of EVE: we know that players know that the optimal setup requires perfect stability, and we try really hard to ensure that stability can never quite be achieved, because at that point you've won and the game is essentially over. I'd also like to protest that the rules of the system are entirely static: what's changing is the landscape, which is entirely driven by the action of other players, and to us that's the absolute heart of "the sandbox" in a multiplayer context. It's not interesting because you're allowed to go off and play in your own corner without regard for anyone else, it's interesting because the actions of other players keep throwing up interesting new challenges, be that through direct PvP combat or extremely indirect market dynamics. A static game gets soved and a solved game has no longevity.
I made a suggestion (not the first I am sure) to put corp tags on all manufactured stuff including parts.
EVE Industry is pure math. There is no volume of decision making involved. All T1 is for T2. Nobody fits T1 Meta 0. We just don't. All prices in EVE for T2 are at 1% or less over parts cost before T2 bpc. At no point is it ever worth my while to make stuff. It is always in my benefit to sell parts and let someone else do it or for most people, it's better to ignore the whole process and simply grind ISK. This creates one way wealth shifting and while it seems great to be on the one way side, it creates the ISK faucet economy we have. It isn't going to change if the only thing we need to see is math.
If on the other hand we introduce a little politics to the process people might in fact start making stuff. Alliance A is at war with Alliance B. Alliance A finds out they are buying most of the fit modules they use from the very alliance they are at war with, you create a responsive desire to find an alternative. You create motive. None of the changes so far motivate people to stop the ISK farm for buy order. It doesn't create an inflation reducing economy and it doesn't create accountability. Something EVE really needs.
|
Jacque Custeau
Knights of the Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 02:43:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Ultimately, you're paying fees in your starbase because that's the balance tradeoff for unlimited slots for everyone. If we take slots away we need some form of substitute (pseudo-)scarcity so that everyone in the universe doesn't just build in Jita 4-4, which would be bad for various reasons but primarily because it removes a whole lot of interesting decisions and makes the rest of the map an industrial wasteland, which is not a thing we want. We felt that scaling fees were a good solution to this, as fees were already a thing (even though they were essentially irrelevant) and because ISK is kinda the nexus of decision-making for serious industrialists. If we're going to use fees, we pretty much have to apply them everywhere, including starbases because they scale too well otherwise and we don't want to re-add pseudo-slots to stop them from being too powerful.
There are a limited number of moons, and you removed the ability for POS structures to remotely use a bpo in station. Both of these points guarantee that they won't become too powerful. A medium POS consumes at least 228 mil in fuel a month (assuming 17k fuel block price) - if you are saying that that fee is irrelevant and we still need to pile on manufacturing fees, then remove the fuel requirement. If the vulnerability of POS structures is irrelevant to the payment of this fee, then make them invulnerable. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12512
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 03:50:00 -
[74] - Quote
Jacque Custeau wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Ultimately, you're paying fees in your starbase because that's the balance tradeoff for unlimited slots for everyone. If we take slots away we need some form of substitute (pseudo-)scarcity so that everyone in the universe doesn't just build in Jita 4-4, which would be bad for various reasons but primarily because it removes a whole lot of interesting decisions and makes the rest of the map an industrial wasteland, which is not a thing we want. We felt that scaling fees were a good solution to this, as fees were already a thing (even though they were essentially irrelevant) and because ISK is kinda the nexus of decision-making for serious industrialists. If we're going to use fees, we pretty much have to apply them everywhere, including starbases because they scale too well otherwise and we don't want to re-add pseudo-slots to stop them from being too powerful.
There are a limited number of moons, and you removed the ability for POS structures to remotely use a bpo in station. Both of these points guarantee that they won't become too powerful. A medium POS consumes at least 228 mil in fuel a month (assuming 17k fuel block price) - if you are saying that that fee is irrelevant and we still need to pile on manufacturing fees, then remove the fuel requirement. If the vulnerability of POS structures is irrelevant to the payment of this fee, then make them invulnerable.
No.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
781
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 04:35:00 -
[75] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but: I understand your reasoning. And that's fine with stations. But if I had a choice, I'd rather take the slots on a POS. That's ofc due to my individual situation. Others may think differently here. Maybe you can take that into account when you redo POSes. Well, now that we have this new system, I can see that the slots were only a limiting factor on top of already existing limiting factor - slots based on skill. The system is actually better than before - the balance, however, is a bit off. I don't want a roll back. I'd rather see them implement changes in a way we can decide how a POS is running. Remove insurance. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6290
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 04:50:00 -
[76] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jacque Custeau wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Ultimately, you're paying fees in your starbase because that's the balance tradeoff for unlimited slots for everyone. If we take slots away we need some form of substitute (pseudo-)scarcity so that everyone in the universe doesn't just build in Jita 4-4, which would be bad for various reasons but primarily because it removes a whole lot of interesting decisions and makes the rest of the map an industrial wasteland, which is not a thing we want. We felt that scaling fees were a good solution to this, as fees were already a thing (even though they were essentially irrelevant) and because ISK is kinda the nexus of decision-making for serious industrialists. If we're going to use fees, we pretty much have to apply them everywhere, including starbases because they scale too well otherwise and we don't want to re-add pseudo-slots to stop them from being too powerful.
There are a limited number of moons, and you removed the ability for POS structures to remotely use a bpo in station. Both of these points guarantee that they won't become too powerful. A medium POS consumes at least 228 mil in fuel a month (assuming 17k fuel block price) - if you are saying that that fee is irrelevant and we still need to pile on manufacturing fees, then remove the fuel requirement. If the vulnerability of POS structures is irrelevant to the payment of this fee, then make them invulnerable. No. Invulnerable POS, nice
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
General Nusense
Not Posting With My Main
189
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 04:57:00 -
[77] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.
Thanks for taking the time to make prices rise without buffing income streams. Not everyone is in a mega blob alliance that gets spoon fed ships. Most, well some, of us actually have to grind isk. Unless your ultimate goal is to make players buy PLEX. Prices for ships are already rising, and this is just the beginning. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
570
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 04:59:00 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Pretty good clarification. Thanks.
However, I still think that the old blueprint holders have a significant advantage - at least by having blueprints that probably already stepped beyond the "high-bar" that new researchers are not willing to invest above. Especially when there are copies of those high quality blueprints flooding the market after copy speed changes. Yes, they do. We had a straight-up trade-off: we could make the blueprint economy more stable in the long run, and nerf everyone's blueprints in the process to varying degrees, or we could accept we're giving a lot of people a leg up but ensure that people are generally getting a good deal in the short term. Our general tendency is towards the longer-term play, but in this instance we were already making seismic changes to industry gameplay, and we were concerned that a straight-up blueprint stats nerf would cause enough additional negative sentiment to discourage large numbers of industrialists and prevent the feature as a whole gaining momentum out of the gate, which could have significant negative consequences for anyone who likes to buy things. We don't like doing short-term-oriented changes but in this case the risk of "damn the torpedoes" was that they might actually sink us.
Makes perfect sense now. Thank you for taking time to extensively communicate with the community about this.
I have read the devblogs and resources that were available about the changes, but there is nothing better than direct Q&A. [:)
o.0 |
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
1027
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 05:48:00 -
[79] - Quote
At some point CCP will figure out that creating a perception that the rewards are increasing for some security sectors and decreasing in others will lead people to move in that direction just doesn't work. But hey, I will let the numbers speak for me. This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
283
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 06:04:00 -
[80] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:and to what degree we want people to be maxing blueprints sequentially vs taking a "old one to 9, new one to 9, old one to 10"-esque approach (over n blueprints, not just over two).
As a sideline to this, did CCP consider having a decimal place, why does it have to be whole numbers ?
If your going to stick with these really long research times (like 1 year to research freighter from 9 to 10) would it be terrible if it was done a month at a time instead of one continuous length of time.
But why use whole numbers to start with, why not have a BP that gives say a 9.2% reduction in materials ? |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12513
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 06:25:00 -
[81] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote:At some point CCP will figure out that creating a perception that the rewards are increasing for some security sectors and decreasing in others will lead people to move in that direction just doesn't work. But hey, I will let the numbers speak for me.
The numbers show that near no industry happens in null. How is it bad that CCP are fixing industry so that there is a reason to leave highsec? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 07:52:00 -
[82] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Pretty good clarification. Thanks.
However, I still think that the old blueprint holders have a significant advantage - at least by having blueprints that probably already stepped beyond the "high-bar" that new researchers are not willing to invest above. Especially when there are copies of those high quality blueprints flooding the market after copy speed changes. Yes, they do. We had a straight-up trade-off: we could make the blueprint economy more stable in the long run, and nerf everyone's blueprints in the process to varying degrees, or we could accept we're giving a lot of people a leg up but ensure that people are generally getting a good deal in the short term. Our general tendency is towards the longer-term play, but in this instance we were already making seismic changes to industry gameplay, and we were concerned that a straight-up blueprint stats nerf would cause enough additional negative sentiment to discourage large numbers of industrialists and prevent the feature as a whole gaining momentum out of the gate, which could have significant negative consequences for anyone who likes to buy things. We don't like doing short-term-oriented changes but in this case the risk of "damn the torpedoes" was that they might actually sink us.
You should have refunded the SP for the ME skill. Then you would have had the leverage to just nerf the pre-Crius BPOs. Since most everyone who messes with BPOs had ME V. Now we have, effectively, T2 BPOs redux and a useless replacement ME skill for casual industrialists. Battles could have been selected more wisely. Moreover, because I hate artificially un-level playing fields, its rather apparent I won't be getting into high-end BPO research or production for a long, long time unless I can milch BPOs off of someone who is quitting |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6291
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 08:31:00 -
[83] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nexus Day wrote:At some point CCP will figure out that creating a perception that the rewards are increasing for some security sectors and decreasing in others will lead people to move in that direction just doesn't work. But hey, I will let the numbers speak for me. The numbers show that near no industry happens in null. How is it bad that CCP are fixing industry so that there is a reason to leave highsec? Nullbears, hah ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
Elizabeth Norn
Nornir Research
382
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 09:23:00 -
[84] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.
So you are artificially creating inflation, forcing consumers to grind more ISK in order to pay for stuff and devaluing ISK in the process... and all that is accomplished not with player actions, but with bad balancing of the new game mechanics. I'm not saying there shouldn't be taxes, I'm saying that there shouldn't be insane taxes of hundreds of millions of ISK just to research a blueprint (and this is measured in an uncontested/empty system - these are minimal prices... average prices are measured in billions for a single blueprint). It looks and feels like Incarna has been zombified. Another thing worth mentioning is a perfect combo of significant research time increase (for capitals it's measured in months) and significant copy time decrease, which tremendously helps players (or entities) with collections of already researched blueprints over players who are starting to venture into industry. It would be interesting to see some statistics of which entities hold the most of researched (especially capital) BPOs, because I smell favoritism. Basically, with this expansion you have revived three of the biggest mistakes you made in the past:
- Prices utterly disconnected with reality
- T2 BPO fiasco... What? Are you going to pull the old "Buy it from the market" mumbo-jumbo for researched BPOs now? Aren't players supposed to discover what game has to offer in a natural way - by buying the BPOs from NPCs like we did for the last decade and actually researching them without being heavily penalized and investing months more in research than the current BPO holders? And all that happens while the current researched BPO holders can print copies faster than ever.
- Potential player favoritism, but that one should hang in the air without being confirmed until you publish the actual statistics. It sure looks like favoritism.
I'm not saying that the new system is inherently bad, I'm saying that you failed miserably in the balancing department.
I didn't know you were running for Dinsdale's 'least educated, most ridiculous posts' job. I have a lot of BPOs and I'm pretty sure I 'lost' more ISK due to the pruning of all my over-researched BPOs than I have 'gained' from not having to pay ISK for the research. It's still not much of a bigger deal to research capital BPOs than it was before, unless you want perfect BPOs, in which case the time investment is still ridiculous, as is the ISK cost. You can always buy the ludicrously underpriced BPOs on contracts ;).
.
|
E6o5
Tyler Durden Demolitions
272
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 09:25:00 -
[85] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but:
Ultimately, you're paying fees in your starbase because that's the balance tradeoff for unlimited slots for everyone. If we take slots away we need some form of substitute (pseudo-)scarcity so that everyone in the universe doesn't just build in Jita 4-4, which would be bad for various reasons but primarily because it removes a whole lot of interesting decisions and makes the rest of the map an industrial wasteland, which is not a thing we want.
but i can't setup a pos in jita ... so what do costs in pos have to do with slot removal in stations? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6291
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 09:42:00 -
[86] - Quote
Perimeter 5-2, I guess. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
XTbe
Infinity Industries Corp
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 11:52:00 -
[87] - Quote
Hi,
I didn't read through the whole post so sorry if this already was discussed (in this or other threads)
I think it should be possible to partially research ME. If you go in the higher levels you need e.g. pay 2 Bil ISK. It would if you could spread the costs and not have to pay the whole amount at one time. This would allow a player to spread the costs.
If you're doing quite some research this would be very helpful.
In order to make it no too complicated when introducing this feature i wouldn't mind if the ME efficiency only comes in effect when the complete level is researched (so no taking into account decimals like e.g 9.4 researched) In the future it could idd be implemented that the decimals are taken into account.
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
300
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 12:47:00 -
[88] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Yes, they do. We had a straight-up trade-off: we could make the blueprint economy more stable in the long run, and nerf everyone's blueprints in the process to varying degrees, or we could accept we're giving a lot of people a leg up but ensure that people are generally getting a good deal in the short term. Our general tendency is towards the longer-term play, but in this instance we were already making seismic changes to industry gameplay, and we were concerned that a straight-up blueprint stats nerf would cause enough additional negative sentiment to discourage large numbers of industrialists and prevent the feature as a whole gaining momentum out of the gate, which could have significant negative consequences for anyone who likes to buy things. We don't like doing short-term-oriented changes but in this case the risk of "damn the torpedoes" was that they might actually sink us.
Again, in deciding for the short term goal, you poisoned the BPO market for YEARS.
Why did you even combine the changes? You could easily have let everyon settle in on the removal of slots and once they did you should have made the BPO changes- with a long term outlook.
It's amazing how you guys always underestimate a lot of your playerbase's tendency to abuse every single loophole you leave them. The procurer market has still not recovered from production pre Retribution, is noone actually paying attention to stuff like that?
Did you at least SAVE the pre conversion BPO information somewhere, so that you can at some point when you feel more commfortable with that come back and convert those BPOs to something they SHOULD be? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6296
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 15:08:00 -
[89] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:The procurer market has still not recovered from production pre Retribution, is noone actually paying attention to stuff like that? Aww yeah, Procurers. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23411
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 15:22:00 -
[90] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Did you at least SAVE the pre conversion BPO information somewhere, so that you can at some point when you feel more commfortable with that come back and convert those BPOs to something they SHOULD be? And what GÇ£shouldGÇ¥ they be? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |