These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Tech is fine l2p

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#761 - 2012-07-26 22:03:18 UTC
no sorry i am not into gangbangs
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#762 - 2012-07-26 22:08:25 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

Ok genius, whats left to fight over after this?





If you wanted to fight people why did you blue everyone in Eve?

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
Hammer Legion Member
Doomheim
#763 - 2012-07-26 22:17:55 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
no sorry i am not into gangbangs


your portrait tells me that is not entirly true


regards
HML

regards, HML
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#764 - 2012-07-26 22:21:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Hammer Legion Member wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:

Owning space sucks, its boring, thankless, and nothing more than a burden. CCP destroyed the value of space by adding in the anoms, so true sec matters far less now days.


would you explain to us, why true sec matters today less than before? Big smile



hi

when you conquer a system you can install a magical structure called an INFRASTRUCTURE HUB

in it you can install the following devices:

http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=2030 <-- generates anomalies that instantly respawn. Truesec does affect these spawns, but no longer affect them in a meaningful way since sanctums and havens were obviated by better types of anoms that spawn in literally any truesec

http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=2044 <-- generates instantly respawning gravimetric sites in a system that allow for boundless mining

neither of these upgrades are particularly affected by system truesec, meaning that any shithole you rent out is identical to the good space

... and when an anom nerf made truesec matter again for a few months the people who complained loudest about it (and eventually got CCP to buff the the lower-end CAs) were the same ones who cry that truesec doesn't matter anymore in this thread.

pre-Dominion: true-sec matters
Dominion: true-sec doesn't matter
Incursion 1.4: true-sec matters again, one of Greyscale's stated intentions is to promote territorial warfare - goons rage that CCP is killing 0.0
Crucible: true-sec doesn't matter

In German we have a saying that goes "wash me - but don't get me wet" and that seems to describe the position of most goon posters on these issues pretty well. You recognize the fundamental problems but as soon as the changes necessary to address them end up hurting you, you complain nevertheless.

It's not a matter of being against killing puppies to reduce usage of fossil fuel but a matter of refusing to give up your SUV despite knowing that you should conserve fossil fuel and be more energy efiicient.

.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#765 - 2012-07-26 22:26:15 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

While we realize this will be a multi stage release, the boredom of 0.0 wont make it until some november release, we need MORE things to drive conflicts NOW not later, and taking the last thing left out isn't really the best idea.


I completely agree that some space being better than other space is good game design.
But the game doesn't need 180k tech to have conflict. Tech is now only 5x the value of the second best moon instead of 11x. The profit there isn't disappearing, it's moving to other activities that people can get involved in.
Arguing that we need 100k+ tech so the moons will drive conflict is like saying we need remote AOE doomsdays so that CSAAs will drive conflict. Sometimes game balance is just game balance.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#766 - 2012-07-26 22:28:15 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:

While we realize this will be a multi stage release, the boredom of 0.0 wont make it until some november release, we need MORE things to drive conflicts NOW not later, and taking the last thing left out isn't really the best idea.


I completely agree that some space being better than other space is good game design.
But the game doesn't need 180k tech to have conflict. Tech is now only 5x the value of the second best moon instead of 11x. The profit there isn't disappearing, it's moving to other activities that people can get involved in.
Arguing that we need 100k+ tech so the moons will drive conflict is like saying we need remote AOE doomsdays so that CSAAs will drive conflict. Sometimes game balance is just game balance.


Ok i still love you but I'm right.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#767 - 2012-07-26 22:42:41 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:

... and when an anom nerf made truesec matter again for a few months the people who complained loudest about it (and eventually got CCP to buff the the lower-end CAs) were the same ones who cry that truesec doesn't matter anymore in this thread.

wrong

the incursion 1.4 change affected us the least

deklein has the most sanctum-capable systems in nullsec

(although at the time the drone regions had a better selection of excellent truesec systems, but they also dropped drone poo which made the comparison weak at best

and now their truesec got punched in the groin and deklein is king shit of truesec mountain)

Quote:
Crucible: true-sec doesn't matter


this is actually a thing that happened and is not merely a sarcastic remark by an npc corp shirtlord

this happened because hubs got retuned to be the best anoms, and outside of pure blind and providence hubs can spawn, meaning that the truesec anom change was all but neutered by making havens and sanctums obsolete

also the removal of drone poo made mining not completely horrible for money generation, and guess what, industry upgrades give no fucks about truesec

but feel free to continue to spout your unfounded neanderthrashings in this forum because your main is in some eastern renter shithole
Powers Sa
#768 - 2012-07-26 22:44:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:

While we realize this will be a multi stage release, the boredom of 0.0 wont make it until some november release, we need MORE things to drive conflicts NOW not later, and taking the last thing left out isn't really the best idea.


I completely agree that some space being better than other space is good game design.
But the game doesn't need 180k tech to have conflict. Tech is now only 5x the value of the second best moon instead of 11x. The profit there isn't disappearing, it's moving to other activities that people can get involved in.
Arguing that we need 100k+ tech so the moons will drive conflict is like saying we need remote AOE doomsdays so that CSAAs will drive conflict. Sometimes game balance is just game balance.

So you're shooting for 80k per unit prices?

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#769 - 2012-07-26 22:55:39 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:

So you're shooting for 80k per unit prices?


One of the goals up until the beginning of phase two is for Tech to continue being the best moon in the game by a large margin.


Grath Telkin wrote:


Ok i still love you but I'm right.


Once upon a time all it took to generate conflict was a prophet foreseeing the destruction of an alliance and fulfilling his own prophecy. I don't believe those days are gone.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Ruiryu
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#770 - 2012-07-26 22:58:46 UTC
I think it is funny how the OTECH guys are crying buckets over this change and saying it's the only thing that fuels conflicts. When it is really only fueling a one sided war where the rest of EVE suffers.

These changes are right on the money to bring things back inline to where things need to be at not where you want them to be at. Suck it up.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#771 - 2012-07-26 23:02:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Promiscuous Female
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:

So you're shooting for 80k per unit prices?


One of the goals up until the beginning of phase two is for Tech to continue being the best moon in the game by a large margin.


coupling the tech nerf with a suicide ganking nerf means that neo will supplant tech as isotope prices crash due to ungankable ice mining bots proliferating like cockroaches

with isotopes at 600 (which is a very conservatively high number) tech will be at 40k within a month

I mean, if you're cool with neo being king shit of moon mineral mountain then go for it

(I'm not sure how committal your statement is intended to be)
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#772 - 2012-07-26 23:09:18 UTC
Ruiryu wrote:
I think it is funny how the OTECH guys are crying buckets over this change and saying it's the only thing that fuels conflicts. When it is really only fueling a one sided war where the rest of EVE suffers.

These changes are right on the money to bring things back inline to where things need to be at not where you want them to be at. Suck it up.

unfree btls
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#773 - 2012-07-26 23:28:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Once upon a time all it took to generate conflict was a prophet foreseeing the destruction of an alliance and fulfilling his own prophecy. I don't believe those days are gone.


Ok you win you're right, prophets are pretty damn amazing (especially tall dark haired ones).

Ruiryu wrote:
I think it is funny how the OTECH guys are crying buckets over this change and saying it's the only thing that fuels conflicts. When it is really only fueling a one sided war where the rest of EVE suffers.

These changes are right on the money to bring things back inline to where things need to be at not where you want them to be at. Suck it up.


I dont think you quite understand the point some of us are making but feel free to be all smug.


We'll suck it up through a 9 trillion isk straw.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Hammer Legion Member
Doomheim
#774 - 2012-07-26 23:45:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Hammer Legion Member
Grath Telkin wrote:

Ok i still love you but I'm right.


Yea your not. Did Technetium @ 200k ever do what your predicting? COS so far, Technetium just slowed fighting down in 0.0 ... you know, all that matters is ISK and so its just more profitable to blue everything that could be dangerous rather than fighting them.Just take a look at the current OTEC Cartel... most of them have been enemies before tech became that serious, now they are all friends.

50x tech moons for PL means ~170bn profit per WEEK for literally doing nothing and risking even less ...be honest, is that what you consider beeing balanced?

at the end, valuable Moon Goo will always stay director-level income wich will only benefits a fairly small amount of players,wich is certainly ok, but the difference shouldnt be too big compared to regular PVE.

regards, HML
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#775 - 2012-07-26 23:58:54 UTC
Hammer Legion Member wrote:
Moon Goo will always stay director-level income


im flattered
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#776 - 2012-07-27 00:06:41 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:

... and when an anom nerf made truesec matter again for a few months the people who complained loudest about it (and eventually got CCP to buff the the lower-end CAs) were the same ones who cry that truesec doesn't matter anymore in this thread.


We're straying away from alliance income into personal pilot income here, and a lot of people would argue that the two should't be different (but they tend to be libertarians with no grasp of reality). The problem wasn't that CCP made truesec matter, it was that they made it matter so much that anything but the best truesec was worth less than high sec (that has no upkeep costs and requires no effort to defend). The ideal income graph would go highsec < lowsec < terrible truesec 0.0 < good truesec 0.0 but implementing that without completely reworking the Eve economy would mean nerfing highsec income and CCP have shown time and time again thats not something they're willing to do.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#777 - 2012-07-27 00:12:17 UTC
yeah, the argument mostly came around to reinforce the fact that without moons, nullsec is too homogenized

that being said, nerfing moon goo is definitely a good thing to do, but doing it without a commensurate buff to make different areas of nullsec differentiated, as well as coupling it with a massive crash in isotope prices is probably the worst possible way to go about it

for example, PI is basically the perfect vehicle to encourage more nullsec activity, but depletion was tuned too poorly and as a result the throngs of empire shirtlords can comfortably supply the market, leaving fallow the planets in nullsec whose higher yields should be dominating the economy

(full disclosure: deklein is also the best PI region in the game)
Garreth Vlox
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#778 - 2012-07-27 00:16:05 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Wocka Wocka!

Remember that if you like this change you should hit the "like" button on this post. I need to know if this is the kind of work the community is looking for. ;)

:Update 24/7:

After evaluating the market reactions and the estimates from experienced players we now feel comfortable accelerating our planned implementation these reactions. We're going to have them start at 10/1 ratios and re-evaluate from there.

New versions of the reactions are:

- 100 Titanium + 100 Vanadium -> 1 Unrefined Vanadium Hafnite -> 20 Vanadium Hafnite +  90 Vanadium
- 100 Cobalt + 100 Platinum -> 1 Unrefined Platinum Technite -> 20 Platinum Technite + 90 Platinum
- 100 Scandium + 100 Chromium -> 1 Unrefined Solerium -> 20 Solerium + 90 Chromium
- 100 Scandium + 100 Cadmium -> 1 Unrefined Caesarium Cadmide -> 20 Caesarium Cadmide + 90 Cadmium

- 100 Evaporite Deposits + 100 Atmospheric Gases -> 1 Unrefined Hexite -> 20 Hexite

- 100 Atmospheric Gases + 100 Tungsten -> 1 Unrefined Rolled Tungsten Alloy -> 20 Rolled Tungsten Alloy + 90 Tungsten 
- 100 Evaporite Deposits + 100 Titanium -> 1 Unrefined Titanium Chromide -> 20 Titanium Chromide + 90 Titanium
- 100 Hydrocarbons + 100 Scandium -> 1 Unrefined Fernite Alloy-> 20 Fernite Alloy + 90 Scandium
- 100 Silicates + 100 Cobalt -> 1 Unrefined Crystallite Alloy -> 20 Crystallite Alloy + 90 Cobalt


Tech needs changing no argument there, but why you do insist on ******* with everything else that isn't broken? When are you guys going to stop giving the FNG the nerf bat and telling him to swing for the fence?

The LULZ Boat.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#779 - 2012-07-27 00:18:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:

So you're shooting for 80k per unit prices?


One of the goals up until the beginning of phase two is for Tech to continue being the best moon in the game by a large margin.


Grath Telkin wrote:


Ok i still love you but I'm right.


Once upon a time all it took to generate conflict was a prophet foreseeing the destruction of an alliance and fulfilling his own prophecy. I don't believe those days are gone.


Don't listen to the nonsense about "WAAH THERE WILL BE NO CONFLICT DRIVERS!!!"

When Ring mining comes out there will be.

They will be called MINERS. They will be players that mine. And they will be out there mining. And then people will want to kill them. Because this is EVE. And those people that are killed will want people to kill the people killing them. And then you will have conflict.

Period. The end.

The reason there is no Conflict right now is because the "Conflict Drivers" ceased being Conflict Drivers. Because it's too freaking easy to control the Tech moons on one side of the galaxy, and hog the resources and become financially indestructible to the point that you'd be ridiculous to conceive of attacking those coalitions, and the coalitions would be stupid to break up a perfectly good ISK winner.

The only group that has the potential to break the OTEC are empire dwellers in huge volumes in an epic uprising of 10,000 players assaulting the north in absurd levels of fury.

Which isn't happening.

Make OTEC vulnerable and give other people income to have a chance to break up OTEC and you have an opportunity to destroy OTEC because the resources don't become disgustingly centralized in the hands of a few. The only reason that this wasn't an issue in the past was because the former Northern Coalition was completely incompetent and they had arch-nemesis' who had the sheer motivation to see their demise.

Where I am.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#780 - 2012-07-27 00:47:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Grath Telkin wrote:

While we realize this will be a multi stage release, the boredom of 0.0 wont make it until some november release, we need MORE things to drive conflicts NOW not later, and taking the last thing left out isn't really the best idea.



So go shoot all the Cobalt and platinum moons.

Plenty of conflict to be had there. It would be financially worth it to stop those moons from being mined.

What? That's not financially motivating enough?

I guess attacking a 9 Trillion ISK a week bloc that has no interest in generating conflict isn't worth driving conflict, hence your "conflict drivers" are a load of crap.

Where I am.