These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands
#1441 - 2014-04-21 17:32:08 UTC
DooDoo Gum wrote:
Querns wrote:
Alyxportur wrote:
marly cortez wrote:
Seems CCP is ... PVP all the way guys, if it moves shoot it.

Want more ... industry ... that will attract ... Players ... win win win for you.

If you read that ... you might think I was ... hilarious ... instead ... the EVE economy that works just like real life.

... facts ... will happen and ... design changes ... this game.

The small ... reason to change something ... for a player ... detracts from ... what ... butterfly effect [implies].

Look ... you changed ... 0.0 stations...

Now ... I ... care ... what ... you are planning



That's how I skimmed it.

This is probably the first post in the history of the forums that has actually used ellipses correctly.


i thought ellipses were meant to shorten sentences?


And paragraph rants?
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1442 - 2014-04-21 17:33:34 UTC
DooDoo Gum wrote:
Querns wrote:

This is probably the first post in the history of the forums that has actually used ellipses correctly.


i thought ellipses were meant to shorten sentences?

They are, and while it's definitely being abused in that case, it's still technically correct. What I was referring to was when people use ellipses to trail off a sentence...

like that. That's not right.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#1443 - 2014-04-21 17:47:36 UTC
Question for CCP:

On patch day, what happens to queued up jobs? Will they start after the patch as then there are an unlimited number of slots? Or will the queue remain for just those jobs, and only be eliminated once the queue empties out?

Will the cost of those jobs installed before the patch change? That is, will I get a new bill?

Somehow I foresee a zillion manufacturing and BPO research jobs all starting at once at Jita on expansion day.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands
#1444 - 2014-04-21 19:36:51 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Question for CCP:

On patch day, what happens to queued up jobs? Will they start after the patch as then there are an unlimited number of slots? Or will the queue remain for just those jobs, and only be eliminated once the queue empties out?

Will the cost of those jobs installed before the patch change? That is, will I get a new bill?

Somehow I foresee a zillion manufacturing and BPO research jobs all starting at once at Jita on expansion day.


I'll queue some RAM jobs to see what happens.

Also, the price of warehouse cans in Jita isn't skyrocketing yet?
Sven Viko VIkolander
Allemannsrett
#1445 - 2014-04-21 19:37:10 UTC
What I've learned from this thread is that many high sec industrialists have highly vested interests in keeping manufacturing an obscure, tedious, boring system, which requires inane and irrelevant grinds like raising standings via missions for a POS, etc., in order for new industrialists to make a reasonable profit.

Overall, as a player who has never touched manufacturing but would someday like to, I am optimistic about these changes, but I think a few bigger issues need to be addressed:

1. If POSes are going to become more accessible (a great change imo) and more useful, this makes the POS revamp all the more needed.

2. Along the same lines as 1., something will need to be done about offline POSes--this is a pretty common practice at the moment, and there is no real incentive for groups to declare war and grind out an offline POS. Many suggestions have been floating around and all of them could work--hacking offline POSes, only getting a criminal flag when attacking one, etc.

3. Null becoming more profitable is great, but it needs to be more dangerous--particularly deep null which is in some ways even safer than high sec. I am also hoping low sec does not get the short end of the stick here, and that it receives a nice boost to industry benefits (and hey, why not improve FW benefits as well? Currently FW upgrades to industry are useless--why not revamp them a bit in line with these changes?)
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#1446 - 2014-04-21 20:07:22 UTC
Querns wrote:
DooDoo Gum wrote:
Querns wrote:

This is probably the first post in the history of the forums that has actually used ellipses correctly.


i thought ellipses were meant to shorten sentences?

They are, and while it's definitely being abused in that case, it's still technically correct. What I was referring to was when people use ellipses to trail off a sentence...

like that. That's not right.

Wikipedia wrote:
To mark the occurrence of aposiopesis with punctuation, an em dash (—) or an ellipsis (…) may be used.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1447 - 2014-04-21 20:33:51 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Querns wrote:
DooDoo Gum wrote:
Querns wrote:

This is probably the first post in the history of the forums that has actually used ellipses correctly.


i thought ellipses were meant to shorten sentences?

They are, and while it's definitely being abused in that case, it's still technically correct. What I was referring to was when people use ellipses to trail off a sentence...

like that. That's not right.

Wikipedia wrote:
To mark the occurrence of aposiopesis with punctuation, an em dash (—) or an ellipsis (…) may be used.


Who cares about these arcane grammar 'rules'...?

...Oh, you're just correcting someone who brought it up out of nowhere?

Well then, let me address the former use case: "They are[...]it's still technically correct."

This is also not true. Technically correct use would be use of the 3 dot ellipsis mid-sentence and the 4 dot ellipsis to indicate an omission beginning at the end of a sentence—I like to bracket the ellipsis to indicate that you're using them functionally and not quoting them, following the MLA style, although the other major usage handbooks do not address this.

Now, can we please stop talking about useless grammar that no one even uses...? As Abraham Lincoln famously said: "If I'd saved time by using more ellipses when posting on the Internet, I could have checked up on the veracity of the authorship of various quotes I found there, as well as many other important tasks such as ... and so, the Civil War would have been easily averted."
Skalle Pande
Teknisk Forlag
#1448 - 2014-04-21 21:28:25 UTC
Falkor1984 wrote:
Changing a queue system for production to a cost system is a very very bad idea.

Granted, the queue system sucks, but a cost system will lead to people having to haul over the place to get some profit. So basically they now have to haul which is basically waiting AT the keyboard instead of waiting AWAY from the keyboard under the queue system.

This is another example of an ill thought through change that causes more boredom, like we had so many lately.

I think the right way to do it is give the player the option to either join the queue OR pay more for a rush job. That way I think you get the best of both worlds.

Sounds sensible to me. But if the cost part is meant to act as a larger ISK sink than what it is presently, consider making slot cost dependent on player standing with the NPC corp in question. Ideally, standings should be of large (larger than now) importance, not lesser, as is planned now. However, in practice the gaining of standing would then need to be much more interesting than it is now.
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands
#1449 - 2014-04-21 21:57:29 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:


... beginning at the end of a sentence ...



Really, wouldn't it be ending at the end of a sentence? I often find myself beginning at the beginning of a sentence with them.
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
#1450 - 2014-04-22 01:16:59 UTC
I didnt see this mentioned in the 25 pages I have read so far... If all slots are being removed (the blog does say station and starbase) why put up anything more than a small POS other than defensive reasons? The fuel you would save would surely pay for a new small stick if you were wardecced. Besides a bit of tax, will there be an additional cost for POS jobs? If not, why install more than one lab?
Alador Afuran
#1451 - 2014-04-22 05:17:18 UTC
Quote:
The good thing about locking down your BPOs atm is that everyone in your corp can use them to produce in your POS, after the patch you would have to unlock a multi billion BPO, bring it to a pos and lock it again and hope that noone gains starbase operator and fueler roles (which you usually need to do anything relevant in a POS) and messes with the POS by offlineing it and then shooting the hangar or the laboratory.

Exactly! We were roleplay as researching LAB and we have more than 450 BPOs available to copy for everyone in corp. I'm not going to unlock all BPOs and moving them to the LAB. It will be self destruction for our game. More pvp opportunity? It's ok. But what about others? So many risk. Where is benefits?
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#1452 - 2014-04-22 05:27:22 UTC
Alador Afuran wrote:
Quote:
The good thing about locking down your BPOs atm is that everyone in your corp can use them to produce in your POS, after the patch you would have to unlock a multi billion BPO, bring it to a pos and lock it again and hope that noone gains starbase operator and fueler roles (which you usually need to do anything relevant in a POS) and messes with the POS by offlineing it and then shooting the hangar or the laboratory.

Exactly! We were roleplay as researching LAB and we have more than 450 BPOs available to copy for everyone in corp. I'm not going to unlock all BPOs and moving them to the LAB. It will be self destruction for our game. More pvp opportunity? It's ok. But what about others? So many risk. Where is benefits?


Easy, there are none. It seems CCP has forgotten how much the things cost. They, as usual do not respect the vastly higher amounts of isk your average industrialist has on the table vs your average pvper. Only serious cap/supercap pilots could come close as far as isk spent on tools of the trade.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#1453 - 2014-04-22 05:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Samsung Tsurpalen wrote:


Hisec does have a massive advantage when it comes to industry, and it's pretty straightforward. CONCORD and the lack of bubbles lets Hisec industrialists move freighters around like it's no big deal, whereas in nullsec you need to jump all of your stuff in (which is way harder and costs more).

That's really THE thing that separates null/low markets from hisec markets and is why nobody really builds there.

The only advantage nullsec has over high right now is that there is access to high end combat anomalies that can be run afk, the best PI extraction rates, and it's basically the only place to go for exploration


So apart from those three things that generate huge incom not even feasible in hisec...along with moon mining and pretty good safety within sov protection null has no advantage??? Big smile

The freight advantage you speak of in hisec? Move more than 100 mil and you will be ganked. Afk in anything and you are likely to be ganked. Compare that to null where you just said that it's possible to afk the supposedly hardest combat anoms? As for CONCORD? They show up after you've been ganked and looted...big help...

Now i'm not saying hisec is too hard as another poster seemed to think but it has different challenges, and to make money from industry there takes a lot of effort and planning. My point was that there needs to be different dynamics for each security region otherwise they will stagnate and die. It makes sense for hisec to be stable industry, losec to be dangerous borderlands and null to be the equivalent of gold rush heaven for resources.

There need to remain good reason to move between sectors hence my belief that the current hisec manufacturing state is healthy for the game.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#1454 - 2014-04-22 06:00:28 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:


3. Null becoming more profitable is great...


Agree generally with most of your post except this. Null is already the most profitable by a large margin...making it more so is unnecessary and more unbalancing in my opinion.

Profit from resources and combat should increase moving from hi to nullsec. Profit from business should decrease from hi to nullsec. Resources should be more readily available in null but harder to process as this takes complex factories. Hisec should have better facilities as stability allows for them to be optimized.

This would lead to greater travel between sectors and a richer game.
Alador Afuran
#1455 - 2014-04-22 06:22:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Alador Afuran
Quote:
Easy, there are none. It seems CCP has forgotten how much the things cost. They, as usual do not respect the vastly higher amounts of isk your average industrialist has on the table vs your average pvper. Only serious cap/supercap pilots could come close as far as isk spent on tools of the trade.

Yep. Personally I have not really worried about "how we can survive in summer". My question is "What is the purpose of our surviving?" I have no time for playing EvE every day. We got fun doing some things as researchers whenever we had time. Now it seems easier to end the game than continue playing.
Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#1456 - 2014-04-22 06:25:19 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:


3. Null becoming more profitable is great...


Agree generally with most of your post except this. Null is already the most profitable by a large margin...making it more so is unnecessary and more unbalancing in my opinion.

Profit from resources and combat should increase moving from hi to nullsec. Profit from business should decrease from hi to nullsec. Resources should be more readily available in null but harder to process as this takes complex factories. Hisec should have better facilities as stability allows for them to be optimized.

This would lead to greater travel between sectors and a richer game.


This incessant drive by CCP to make Null even more profitable belies the real issue with Null and its lack of inhabitants...Null Sucks, Sov mechanics suck, they should just rename Null to Dyson it sucks so bad. As a result most players call High Sec home because there is a chance to play the game without being "called up to defend" or forced to fly specific ships/fits or basically kissing the a** of whomever you have to rent from for the privilege of living there. Fix the Sov mechanics and then possibly Null will become more enticing. Making it more profitable will not have the migratory effect that CCP intends. Rather these changes will drive another nail in the coffin of disenfranchisement that High Sec players currently reside in.
G'Kar Rin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1457 - 2014-04-22 06:52:53 UTC  |  Edited by: G'Kar Rin
CCP How do i go about getting a refund in SP or Plex for the time/ISK I spent training up loot processing skills that are no longer relevant?
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC
#1458 - 2014-04-22 06:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Droidyk
edit:
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1459 - 2014-04-22 09:11:35 UTC
Anders Madeveda wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:


3. Null becoming more profitable is great...


Agree generally with most of your post except this. Null is already the most profitable by a large margin...making it more so is unnecessary and more unbalancing in my opinion.

Profit from resources and combat should increase moving from hi to nullsec. Profit from business should decrease from hi to nullsec. Resources should be more readily available in null but harder to process as this takes complex factories. Hisec should have better facilities as stability allows for them to be optimized.

This would lead to greater travel between sectors and a richer game.


This incessant drive by CCP to make Null even more profitable belies the real issue with Null and its lack of inhabitants...Null Sucks, Sov mechanics suck, they should just rename Null to Dyson it sucks so bad. As a result most players call High Sec home because there is a chance to play the game without being "called up to defend" or forced to fly specific ships/fits or basically kissing the a** of whomever you have to rent from for the privilege of living there. Fix the Sov mechanics and then possibly Null will become more enticing. Making it more profitable will not have the migratory effect that CCP intends. Rather these changes will drive another nail in the coffin of disenfranchisement that High Sec players currently reside in.


Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1460 - 2014-04-22 09:37:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathalie LaPorte
Alyxportur wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:


... beginning at the end of a sentence ...



Really, wouldn't it be ending at the end of a sentence? I often find myself beginning at the beginning of a sentence with them.



Your question contains pronouns without a clear antecedent. If my earlier post wasn't clear enough for you, check out http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ellipsis