These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Jump Drive Isotope Consumption

First post First post First post
Author
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#501 - 2014-05-03 02:30:11 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Ravcharas wrote:
sabastyian wrote:
CCP Fozzie, why do you post these threads for "feedback" then chose to completely ignore any amount of feedback you receive?

Give him a minute to deal with fanfest, would you?

LOL, why do you think these blogs are released now. Hoping fanfest will distract players from some of the more unsavory changes being forced on us is actually quite clever marketing.

Just because something is a good idea, doesn't make it the right idea.

This idea, is just really really bad


Actually, no. Putting it out before Fanfest is ideal. It allows them to consider both the responses here as well as feedback from players directly at Fanfest. Fozzie has already replied he is reading, but doesn't have the time at the moment to respond. Give it time. He knows he's catching a wall of shite over this one from various directions.
nercomonger
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#502 - 2014-05-03 02:32:25 UTC  |  Edited by: nercomonger
This is a TERRIBLE idea.

As it is its a royal pain shipping moon goo to high sec.

At your current suggested levels, it will be CHEAPER to titan bridge a full freighter, than to use my JF.


This is a BAD PLAN......

Now, if you give the JF and Rorq. a bonus to fuel consumption, and jack up the prices to move all other capitals... I would be ok with the change.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#503 - 2014-05-03 02:39:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
nercomonger wrote:
This is a TERRIBLE idea.

As it is its a royal pain shipping moon goo to high sec.

At your current suggested levels, it will be CHEAPER to titan bridge a full freighter, than to use my JF.


This is a BAD PLAN......


Then you have the titan bridging freighter option. EVE players always find a way.

By the way, if becomes uneconomical to ship your moon goo to hisec, then that doesn't mean they broke the game or the market. Not for you or for the game as a whole. It just means the market doesn't currently support a price that is economical for you to be competitive in. Thus you would (normally) choose to stop producing that item, find a more economical market if one exists, or hoard supply until the price adjusts. This then results in a loss of your potential supply and prices will adjust to reflect that supply reduction. Perhaps at some point in the future, it will become economically advantageous for you to starting shipping goo to empire once again.

For the record, I'm against the change too, but for reasons associated with the logic behind the proposed change. Not because it may or may not hurt me personally, be bad for the "little guy" or any such non-relevant issue. The reason why they are making the change is not adequately based on reality or necessity.
nercomonger
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#504 - 2014-05-03 02:42:17 UTC
While yes, changes could be made.

Making this kind of a change, prior to seeing the need for it, is a terrible idea.


They are speculating on the market.


This really is uncharted territory, no one knows what will happen post change.
nercomonger
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#505 - 2014-05-03 02:44:00 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
nercomonger wrote:
This is a TERRIBLE idea.

As it is its a royal pain shipping moon goo to high sec.

At your current suggested levels, it will be CHEAPER to titan bridge a full freighter, than to use my JF.


This is a BAD PLAN......


Then you have the titan bridging freighter option. EVE players always find a way.

By the way, if becomes uneconomical to ship your moon goo to hisec, then that doesn't mean they broke the game or the market. Not for you or for the game as a whole. It just means the market doesn't currently support a price that is economical for you to be competitive in. Thus you would (normally) choose to stop producing that item, find a more economical market if one exists, or hoard supply until the price adjusts. This then results in a loss of your potential supply and prices will adjust to reflect that supply reduction. Perhaps at some point in the future, it will become economically advantageous for you to starting shipping goo to empire once again.



A simpler way would be to make POS's anchored in high-sec burn more fuel per hour.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#506 - 2014-05-03 02:47:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
nercomonger wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
nercomonger wrote:
This is a TERRIBLE idea.

As it is its a royal pain shipping moon goo to high sec.

At your current suggested levels, it will be CHEAPER to titan bridge a full freighter, than to use my JF.


This is a BAD PLAN......


Then you have the titan bridging freighter option. EVE players always find a way.

By the way, if becomes uneconomical to ship your moon goo to hisec, then that doesn't mean they broke the game or the market. Not for you or for the game as a whole. It just means the market doesn't currently support a price that is economical for you to be competitive in. Thus you would (normally) choose to stop producing that item, find a more economical market if one exists, or hoard supply until the price adjusts. This then results in a loss of your potential supply and prices will adjust to reflect that supply reduction. Perhaps at some point in the future, it will become economically advantageous for you to starting shipping goo to empire once again.



A simpler way would be to make POS's anchored in high-sec burn more fuel per hour.


There are several "other" ways of subsidizing the ice farmer market, but at this point, no evidence yet exists that the changes they are making will have the outcome they suspect might happen. Thus there is no need to rush into any change. 2-4 weeks after June 3 they will have clear evidence and can then make a change, either this one or something else.
zentary
Tactical Grace.
Vanguard.
#507 - 2014-05-03 03:01:02 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
zentary wrote:
well ccp you've failed again. Thank you and good night.

Because we do something to break something lets just jack **** up by 50%. Yeah that makes perfect sense.

How about decrease amount of isk made in high sec and low sec first. Then you wouldn't have such a huge surplus of isk. Seriously what's the point of allowing someone to make more isk in high and low sec than 00? The whole point to 00 was making the big bucks back when i first started playing eve.

Sorry but that has all changed for the betterment of eve as a whole -


Balancing CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie style;
Devs Idea - Devs Big smile - Players What? - Players Ugh - Devs Twisted - Players Roll - Devs Question - Players AttentionAttention - Devs Blink - Players CryUgh



> I'll tell you a secret, the Ibis will soon be the go to ship for everything Eve. Don't tell anyone else though, don't want to spoil CCP Rises & CCP Fozzies big announcement.



Sorry no. that was just to help the people who just complained all day, not for the betterment of eve. all we have no is a massive surplus of isk and what not because of it
ButtFungus
SOONWAFFE
#508 - 2014-05-03 04:23:53 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
ButtFungus wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.
For now I just wanted to drop by and make sure you know that we're not ignoring this thread, I'm reading everything...


Please pay careful attention to the corps/alliances represented in this thread. I have seen posts from Major Power Blocks and posts from the smallest indy corps all agreeing on something. This is nearly unheard of in Eve, and it happened in response to your idea, Fozzie. It appears to be the opinion of all that your plan is a bad idea...


Well, let's not go crazy. The Universal Brotherhood of Frozen Liquid Local 632 is quite happy with this proposed change. Nothing like government handouts to get the union vote to rally up :ObamaIce:

That's only the hisec local. The locals in null and low oppose the idea as the teamsters plan to increase transport fees to compensate.
They recommend:
1) Change Cyno behavior so that as soon as the cyno ship is destroyed, the explosion disrupts the cyno signal causing portals to drop and jump drives to lose their locks. This would require progressively stronger cyno ships as fleet size increases, or the cyno could go down with only part of the fleet moved. Deploying a large fleet now becomes riskier than jumping a small gang. Risk vs reward.
2) Prevent portals from being opened within 15km of a POS shield. That is the distance needed for the Jump Bridge to be anchored from a POS shield, apply the same mechanic to a ship based jump portal. This would require ships be deployed to guard the bridging ship lest a gank fleet jump in as soon as the fleet has jumped out. When combined with #1 above, it would allow a fleet to trap a freighter bridging from a Titan by destroying the cyno as soon as it is lit, trapping the Titan and Freighter 15km from a pos shield. This would make JF a viable alternative to losing a freighter and titan, and stimulate the isotope market.
3) Re-examine the distribution of racial ice anomalies. If increasing local resource gathering is the goal, then all resources should be available to harvest locally. If you have 4 racial carriers, freighters, or towers, you need 4 racial isotopes to power them. Without all 4 racial anomalies available locally, there is no incentive to do anything but gather the most profitable resource, sell it, and buy what you need at the markets in hisec. Break up distribution into 1-3 constellation blocks with different racial anoms. It could also serve to encourage trade between local friendly corps/alliances who now live in bordering areas with different resources... and conflicts between unfriendly bordering entities who desire the other's resources.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#509 - 2014-05-03 07:08:30 UTC
Tubrug1 wrote:
So you're not tackling the real issue involving jump drives which is power projection?


That would be TOO obvious!
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#510 - 2014-05-03 07:49:16 UTC
zentary wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
zentary wrote:
well ccp you've failed again. Thank you and good night.

Because we do something to break something lets just jack **** up by 50%. Yeah that makes perfect sense.

How about decrease amount of isk made in high sec and low sec first. Then you wouldn't have such a huge surplus of isk. Seriously what's the point of allowing someone to make more isk in high and low sec than 00? The whole point to 00 was making the big bucks back when i first started playing eve.

Sorry but that has all changed for the betterment of eve as a whole -


Balancing CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie style;
Devs Idea - Devs Big smile - Players What? - Players Ugh - Devs Twisted - Players Roll - Devs Question - Players AttentionAttention - Devs Blink - Players CryUgh



> I'll tell you a secret, the Ibis will soon be the go to ship for everything Eve. Don't tell anyone else though, don't want to spoil CCP Rises & CCP Fozzies big announcement.



Sorry no. that was just to help the people who just complained all day, not for the betterment of eve. all we have no is a massive surplus of isk and what not because of it

I agree with you completely.
It is difficult to put sarcasm into words on paper. The delivery is what makes a lot of sarcastic remarks work.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#511 - 2014-05-03 16:00:18 UTC
Dear CCP

Make sub caps use isotopes to warp around systems. Demand problem solved forever.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#512 - 2014-05-03 19:14:33 UTC
With rigs for freighters and jumpfreighters, it means you will be able to jump more m3 per trip - that alleviates some of the added cost from jumpfuel requirement- and compression/reprocessing changes.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#513 - 2014-05-03 19:15:26 UTC
Ravcharas wrote:
With rigs for freighters and jumpfreighters, it means you will be able to jump more m3 per trip - that alleviates some of the added cost from jumpfuel requirement- and compression/reprocessing changes.

Maybe... cargo space may get nerfed to accommodate the rigs and customization.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#514 - 2014-05-03 21:14:46 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.
For now I just wanted to drop by and make sure you know that we're not ignoring this thread, I'm reading everything.

I'll be collecting together and answering/discussing some of the points raised soon. Part of the reason I posted this before Fanfest is so that we could take advantage of all the feedback possible, but that also means that we'll be a bit slower replying to threads for the next couple days. Rest assured that we'll make it up to you next week, and we're not forgetting about this thread.


Fozzie I want an update from you or someone on your team by/on Monday or I will write a letter explaining how upset i am at CCPs lack of communication after receiving feed back that nearly unanimously say "dont do this."
Tam Althor
Commonwealth Industries
#515 - 2014-05-03 22:47:34 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.
For now I just wanted to drop by and make sure you know that we're not ignoring this thread, I'm reading everything.

I'll be collecting together and answering/discussing some of the points raised soon. Part of the reason I posted this before Fanfest is so that we could take advantage of all the feedback possible, but that also means that we'll be a bit slower replying to threads for the next couple days. Rest assured that we'll make it up to you next week, and we're not forgetting about this thread.


Fozzie I want an update from you or someone on your team by/on Monday or I will write a letter explaining how upset i am at CCPs lack of communication after receiving feed back that nearly unanimously say "dont do this."


Don't hold your breath... most of the devs will still be in recovery on Monday, expect responses to start rolling out Tuesday and Wednesday.
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#516 - 2014-05-03 23:44:59 UTC
speaking as one of the little guys. (npc null pvp alliance).
apart from jump freighter runs we barely use ice products.
titan bridges are almost non existant, blops something we do for fun 1-2 times /month and carrier /dread ops are just as rare and VERY limited in numbers.
I don't see us noticing much.
But a big thankyou to all the people in huge coalitions going into bat for us to preserve us from this hideous cost increase. Straight

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

JohnnyRingo
Illusion of Flight
#517 - 2014-05-04 19:31:41 UTC
I love jumping my archon/moros around, DONT YOU DARE CCP TO JACK UP THE PRICE OF THAT!
Sladislov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#518 - 2014-05-04 19:45:36 UTC
WTB Mackinaw

       Sladislov Director of Silly semantics       Broksi Kurth    xXxBlack LegionxXx

Narjack
CragCO
#519 - 2014-05-04 21:57:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Narjack
So I run PI in null sec. PI is supposed to be better in more dangerous space as part of the whole risk/reward factor right? But now the profit margin due to transporting these goods to market just took a big hit. So what's the point? I need to do the math but it seems like its starting to look like I might as well move this into safer space so I don't need to bother with fuel costs. I would like to say I could just transfer my extra transport costs to the buyers but the reality is that people will just do this in high sec and will probably find the "free" transport cost about equal to the less productive planets found in high sec.

I really don't get this change. Move to null sec? Why? Its a pain the ass and become less and less profitable unless your with a big alliance. This just makes it more and more unfriendly to small corps.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#520 - 2014-05-04 23:18:07 UTC
Narjack wrote:
I really don't get this change. Move to null sec? Why? Its a pain the ass and become less and less profitable unless your with a big alliance. This just makes it more and more unfriendly to small corps.

Sad but true. Nulsec has been pretty evenly divided up between the power blocks and this is another change by Devs that will help them maintain the status quo.
That's not to say there isn't a place for smaller alliances in Nul, as long as they don't try to move into 1 of the power blocks space they will be for the most part left alone. Don't make the mistake of trying to get more sov though, you may find 1 of the big guys gets offended and decides to push you back to lowsec. Or worse, invite you to join them (an offer you accept, or go back to lowsec).

Anything larger than a small gang roaming is no longer alliance or corp warfare / Pvp. it is purely coalition level fighting.
1 alliance attacking another is declaring war on a coalition and as the coalitions have all the isk they need, this change will have no affect on them. It will possibly make it easier for them to maintain things just as they are.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.