EVE Information Portal

Too many fundamental changes all at the same time, some good some bad. It will be very difficult to figure out what is broken in the system if you change every fundamental aspect of it.

You are changing the interaction of blueprints with poses and Conquerable stations. You are adding non player controlled taxes to nullsec stations (Seriously wtf, let players control 0.0). As you currently have it written your asking people to put potentially hundreds of billions of prints into poses in order to manufacture ./ or copy them. Seems a bit unfair, especially for those involved in capital production as you have managed to add many hours of additional hauling and more risk that the sometimes narrow profit margins are worth.

We already have a huge amount of risk in the form of month (or more) long builds, why do we need to put another 100 bil of risk into the pot in the form of BPOS that we cant lock down (in poses)?

Has the possibility of only making the act of "copying" allow for the BPO to be in station and the copy job to be at a POS? Any other type of jobs require that the blueprint be at the location.

And all that baloney is just your opinion.

Dear CCP,

Your proposal pleases me.

You may proceed.

Then you still have a couple of months' head start on the land rush.

I was speaking of T1 *modules* for which there are meta versions available, which make up the bulk of the T1 modules in the game. There are only a handful of modules which do not have a meta version, dropped by NPCs.

I was also speaking of items which can be built and (profitably) sold by new players, who are just getting learning how to manufacture stuff in EVE - not vet industrialists.

If you edit your list accordingly, you'll find it to be much, much shorter.

I there are no longer going to be remote industry jobs then what is going to be of the skill "supply chain management"?

I don't think they look at it that way, though. More likely, they will see it as a lot of wasted game time, and possibly unsub out of irritation or frustration.

This change - and many other recent and upcoming changes (not just the industry ones) - tend to have a much greater (negative) effect on the newer players. And, every time this happens, we lose a few more players, which isn't good for the continuing health of the game.

So, is some form of reimbursement of the POS standings grind a bad idea? No - in fact, it is a good idea to help retain those younger players.

And, remember that when the learning skills went away, we *did* all get reimbursed for the SP, regardless of how much and for how long we individually benefited from having them trained up.

Everyone wins, no one loses. Best way to (re)design a feature.

I am very scared of this.

Way too many changes coming all at once. I highly doubt CCP has considered the second and third order effects of all of these changes. The easy ones to see are only the beginning. Lock downed BPOs are now doomed to pay the extra fees for being researched or built from as they will be highly unlikely to be actually in a POS since they can't be locked down.

Mineral prices are going to go up as a major source of them will be heavily nerved, reprocessing. And you are nerfing the retrievers and mackinaws a bit too. I see 8-10 isk per grit chunk soon. Maybe that will make mining more profitable, but even as a maxed out miner I rarely mine as it is mind numbingly dull. I just see PVP getting even more expensive.

Also my Corp required standings to facilitate a High Sec POS and that looks like its been a major waste of time. thanks...
I have several years worth of star base charters saved up...another waste

Ok I do like the RAM changes. That makes sense.

Not a big fan of the extra materials either although I think i would rather keep that and my repro rates of loot drops.

Slot removal sounds interesting, but that really lessons the point of a research POS, which is then totally killed off by the not being able to remote research lock downed BPOs in a NPC station.

More commentary in a future post

CCP please surprise me and respond to this post.


I really like almost all of this blog.

However.

STANDINGS.

this will be the second or 3rd change to standings that is removing an element from the sandbox.

I would like to see you give standings more meaning and importance. Especially in Highsec. I think it is an interesting mechanic that adds depth to the game-play and creates variety in identity and groups in the game.

It adds a value to the player or corp that has worked to gain standings to anchor a POS in highsec. It used to mean something in FW, and it used to be able to give RP players another layer to judge other players in game.

It seems in regards to standings you keep making the game easier (and I hate to say it but it certainly appears with the direct benefit of assisting the nullsec alliance players.) One of the good balance points was most Nullsec entities were limited in high sec or forced to use smaller alt corps or higher mercs to have a safe highsec POS or industry wing.

I absolutely think that there should be more risk and reward for all activities that occur in Nullsec, but they don't need easier access to run rough shod over highsec. Standings is a good mechanic to help vary the power bases into different areas of the game and I think you should reconsider this change.

Also I did not see you give any good reason for removing it and I think I have presented some good reasons for keeping it.