These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#61 - 2014-04-29 14:00:14 UTC
What's the next change? "We will disband any alliance below 500 members for being irrelevant"?
Migui X'hyrrn
No More Dramas Only Llamas
#62 - 2014-04-29 14:00:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
At first glance this appears to be an excellent idea.


If you cut the amount of fuel then we will bring more fuelers with us.

This won't work. It is the same thing as if you capped the amount of ships that can jump through a bridge. You put more cynos, more bridges, whatever.

Linear nerfs are not going to work, because they are trivial to circunvent by simply adding more ships to the equation, and this means that you are nerfing the small guy.


Migui is running for CSM10!
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#63 - 2014-04-29 14:01:45 UTC
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#64 - 2014-04-29 14:03:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
i wish you'd stop trying to apply band-aid fixes to power projection and address the actual issues tho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
KiithSoban
Mackies Raiders
Wild Geese.
#65 - 2014-04-29 14:03:20 UTC
Came expecting to see power projection Nerf. Was disappointed.

I want to see logi appear on killmails! (by just repping)  See CSM "reasonable things"
Marketing Chairman Stalin
Space Marketing Department
#66 - 2014-04-29 14:03:30 UTC
I can't like threads :(
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#67 - 2014-04-29 14:03:43 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.


Do you actually think things through before you post or what
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#68 - 2014-04-29 14:04:32 UTC
Migui X'hyrrn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
At first glance this appears to be an excellent idea.


If you cut the amount of fuel then we will bring more fuelers with us.

This won't work. It is the same thing as if you capped the amount of ships that can jump through a bridge. You put more cynos, more bridges, whatever.

Linear nerfs are not going to work, because they are trivial to circunvent by simply adding more ships to the equation, and this means that you are nerfing the small guy.




Read what he wrote, it's just intended to increase the cost of jumping capital ships (as well as the demand for isotopes), not decrease jump range or require more fuelers.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#69 - 2014-04-29 14:05:01 UTC
BadAssMcKill wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.


Do you actually think things through before you post or what


reported

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#70 - 2014-04-29 14:05:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.

Thinking on this, there's one outlier -- jump bridges. You may want to go forward with actually increasing the bay size on this, as messing with the volume of LO3 has some hilarious knockbacks related to cynos that you probably don't want. (Non-expanded interceptor cynos, anyone?)

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Antoine Jordan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2014-04-29 14:05:06 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.

hooray for fast fixes!
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#72 - 2014-04-29 14:06:32 UTC
Querns wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.

Thinking on this, there's one outlier -- jump bridges. You may want to go forward with actually increasing the bay size on this, as messing with the volume of LO3 has some hilarious knockbacks related to cynos that you probably don't want. (Non-expanded interceptor cynos, anyone?)


isotopes aren't liquid ozone you dumb GOON

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2014-04-29 14:06:39 UTC
Querns wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.

Thinking on this, there's one outlier -- jump bridges. You may want to go forward with actually increasing the bay size on this, as messing with the volume of LO3 has some hilarious knockbacks related to cynos that you probably don't want. (Non-expanded interceptor cynos, anyone?)

Liquid ozone isn't isotopes
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#74 - 2014-04-29 14:07:22 UTC
Querns wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.

Thinking on this, there's one outlier -- jump bridges. You may want to go forward with actually increasing the bay size on this, as messing with the volume of LO3 has some hilarious knockbacks related to cynos that you probably don't want. (Non-expanded interceptor cynos, anyone?)


I don't think they count LO3 as isotope, just as an Ice product

Baddest poster ever
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#75 - 2014-04-29 14:08:14 UTC
Capqu wrote:
Querns wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.

Thinking on this, there's one outlier -- jump bridges. You may want to go forward with actually increasing the bay size on this, as messing with the volume of LO3 has some hilarious knockbacks related to cynos that you probably don't want. (Non-expanded interceptor cynos, anyone?)


isotopes aren't liquid ozone you dumb GOON

Uh, yeah, but he said they aren't increasing bay sizes any more. I'm saying still do it for the Jump Bridge.

Gosh.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Migui X'hyrrn
No More Dramas Only Llamas
#76 - 2014-04-29 14:09:18 UTC
Destoya wrote:
Read what he wrote, it's just intended to increase the cost of jumping capital ships (as well as the demand for isotopes), not decrease jump range or require more fuelers.


If you need more fuel to cover the same distance you need more fuelers.

This idea is dumb because it follows the same reasoning as "Hey, if we duplicate the taxes, we will duplicate the money that we get from taxes". What happens in reality? You kill the competitiveness. Hits harder to the small guy, etc.

I don't care if a bridge/jump costs X or 2X or X/2. If I have ships with jump drive it means that I can afford the cost.

The problem is for the newbro that is going to find much harder to live in 0.0 because everything will be much more expensive.

Migui is running for CSM10!
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#77 - 2014-04-29 14:09:53 UTC
Peter Powers wrote:
Translation: The huge rich alliances get a minor nerf to their fleets that they probably care less about, while lesser rich entities, (small capital heavy corps, jumpfreighter services, roaming blackops gangs) get the shortstick...

This is how pretty much every change ever works out.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#78 - 2014-04-29 14:09:57 UTC
I know it's cool to viciously attack any perceived flaw in game mechanics knowledge to prove your worth to the herd and all but you should probably actually read what's being said before frothing at the mouth.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Cultural Enrichment
Jenkem Puffing Association
#79 - 2014-04-29 14:10:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Resgo wrote:
Rather than increasing the size of fuel bays, why not cut the volume of the isotyopes by a third. Then it would carry through all of your systems using the isotopes at fuel. It wouldn't have an impact on POSes as POSes consume fuel blocks that would stay the same size.


At first glance this appears to be an excellent idea.

What makes you think you can recognize a good idea when you keep having such ****** ones?
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#80 - 2014-04-29 14:10:07 UTC
Querns wrote:
Capqu wrote:
Querns wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.

Thinking on this, there's one outlier -- jump bridges. You may want to go forward with actually increasing the bay size on this, as messing with the volume of LO3 has some hilarious knockbacks related to cynos that you probably don't want. (Non-expanded interceptor cynos, anyone?)


isotopes aren't liquid ozone you dumb GOON

Uh, yeah, but he said they aren't increasing bay sizes any more. I'm saying still do it for the Jump Bridge.

Gosh.


how should i know how jump bridges work u took our fuckin sov

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg