These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
DGDragon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#181 - 2014-04-29 16:15:09 UTC
It seems to killing Outer Indurstry is CCP's final goal...
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#182 - 2014-04-29 16:15:18 UTC
Marketing Chairman Stalin wrote:
penifSMASH wrote:
Can you double the base amount of liquid ozone consumption for lighting a cyno


reduce all frigate cargoholds by 200% to compensate


You want frigates to have a negative cargohold?!?!

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
13 nonames
Jumpbridg
#183 - 2014-04-29 16:16:31 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone!

In the upcoming Summer release we are making a lot of changes that we expect will impact player behavior surrounding manufacturing, mining and starbase use. We see an opportunity here to make some adjustments to the way that Jump Drives consume their isotope fuel that will hit a few birds with one stone.

The goals of this change are:
  • Stimulate the isotope (and therefore ice) market to help cushion any drop in demand from players using smaller starbases after the science and industry slot changes.
  • Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
  • Although we don't expect this change to significantly impact behavior around jump drive power projection, it should at least provide a small incentive change through higher costs for moving huge capital fleets often.

The plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals.

To compensate for the extra isotopes that ships will need to carry, the volume of all four isotopes will be reduced by 1/3, to 0.1m3. Thanks to Resgo for some excellent feedback.

The storage volume of jump bridge starbase structures will be increased by 50% since Ozone volume won't be changing.

For reference, this will increase the cost of running a max skilled Rhea from Jita to RIT-A7 (jump drive transit the whole way) from ~50m isk to ~75m isk.


Open season for devs?
Gabriel Z
Krabulous
#184 - 2014-04-29 16:19:48 UTC
If the ISK faucets don't produce more ISK (and I don't think they ever will), the constantly rising prices of everything puts casual players at an extreme disadvantage. I simply don't have the time to grind out the ISK necessary to buy all the fits for all of the doctrines my alliance uses, plus the replacement ships, ammo, and transport costs for moving that stuff around. We don't even have large scale T2 or T3 doctrine fleets either, which I imagine costs significantly more. I barely have time to participate in the actual fleet action this game is supposed to be all about (the time eaten up by all the nonsense that goes with fleets is unbelievable and a direct result of poor ingame tool design).

I pay cash for my subscription. I'm not buying PLEX on top of that to keep myself supplied. You guys are backdooring the cash shop model and you're hoping no one will notice.
13 nonames
Jumpbridg
#185 - 2014-04-29 16:20:39 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Here's a crazy thought... Remove all the jump fuel from Hisec. If all the jump fuel had to be sourced from 0.0 and lowsec, and the different racial variants were only found in specific regions... the space you control would directly determine which racial jump drives you could fuel and therefore what capital ships you could field.

That would undoubtedly cause utter chaos and a massive uproar so you might have to introduce some sort of "generic" jump fuel that can be found everywhere, but has a lower efficiency e.g. you need more of it to make the same jump.


well you might want to think about what you said since each region holds its own type of ice.....
13 nonames
Jumpbridg
#186 - 2014-04-29 16:21:49 UTC
Sperg Eagle Zigglesworth wrote:
CCP Fozzie, the biggest idiot in EVE Online, and that's pretty hard to do. Thanks for ruining small alliance logistics.


i feel for you ccp has made nothing but **** changes this upcoming summer xpack
StinGer ShoGuN
Pragmatic Kernel
Shadow Cartel
#187 - 2014-04-29 16:23:46 UTC  |  Edited by: StinGer ShoGuN
Seriously, are you trying to kill all small/mid size corps/alliances living in low sec and not involved in FW or what ??!!

If you're going on a scheme HS <-> carebearism, LS <-> FW and null <-> PvP (well, if sov warfare is PvP), say it already so that I can stop my subscriptions.

With the blogs regarding industry, it seems you are already nerfing POS in LS for those using them for doing... INDUSTRY !! Ho YEAH FOR REAL !!
Now, you want to increase the fuel consumption, which will increase the fuel cost so POS are gonna be more expensive. And I'll tell you something you may have forgotten: THERE IS NO FUEL CONSUMPTION REDUCTION IN LOW BECAUSE THERE IS NO SOV !! HELLOOO !!!

So now, basically, it will cost me more to move material to low to manufacture stuff and it will cost me more to maintain POS while I won't earn more on the other hand.
Tell me how as a small entity I can build up with your new system ? You are literally killing all income possibilities.

CCP stop it already, think about not FW low sec players. You're seriously killing us. XXX
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#188 - 2014-04-29 16:27:06 UTC
I thought you were seriously going to man up and do some kind of capital nerf. disappointed.
BigSako
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#189 - 2014-04-29 16:27:09 UTC
Again, CCP is nerfing PLAYERS instead of alliances.

Quote:

The goals of this change are:
Stimulate the isotope (and therefore ice) market to help cushion any drop in demand from players using smaller starbases after the science and industry slot changes.

Please, show me a single graph that will point out how much RESEARCH POSES IN HIGHSEC consume vs. how much Capital Fleets in this game consume in isotopes.

Quote:

Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.

CCP failed at that for the past 4 years since I played EvE. This won't change anything, and I havent seen any changes so far made to ice belts.

Quote:

Although we don't expect this change to significantly impact behavior around jump drive power projection, it should at least provide a small incentive change through higher costs for moving huge capital fleets often.

This does not matter for large alliances/coalitions. They will just charge their renters more money. It impacts small corps and solo players the most.


Long story short, all arguments provided are invalid in my opinion.

Counter Example: Let's increase the cost of water, because people are going to be drinking less water next month. That's not how economy works.
Chic Botany
Doomheim
#190 - 2014-04-29 16:27:48 UTC
So first you nerf the infinite ice which I can understand, it was pretty silly when you think about it.

Now you create extra demand from people who run cap ships?

Seriously, can you give me the email address of your dealer, I could do with some of the stuff you're smoking. Roll

You want people to go to nullsec but now make it more expensive to live there due to higher transport costs.
You want industry in nullsec but who's gonna lodge expensive BPO's in a pos that anybody can take down without wardecs
You want simpler industry with the new dumbing down research idea, but dissuade nullsec industry with more expensive transport if you live a long way from empire.


Ah I see where you're going, you're listening too much to the "Wah the old players have got it so much better than I have" newbies.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#191 - 2014-04-29 16:29:59 UTC
Rather then have a linear jump fuel cost as we have now, why not introduce an exponential fuel cost.

This would help nerf power projection by making alliances think twice about jumping at their max range to get places quickly, however it would have a smaller impact on industry because they could make double the amount of jumps they are currently to reduce their travel costs.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#192 - 2014-04-29 16:32:15 UTC
Gabriel Z wrote:
I pay cash for my subscription. I'm not buying PLEX on top of that to keep myself supplied. You guys are backdooring the cash shop model and you're hoping no one will notice.

Making you buy PLEX is kind of convoluted when they could just use the NeX.

"This summer; super-isotopes are coming to an AUR shop near you. 10% increase in jump distance and half the consumption. Put some oomph in your jumps!"
SuPPrisE Ambraelle
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#193 - 2014-04-29 16:32:25 UTC
SOOOOOOOOO lets make ice rare and in high demand ... that way we can reduce the scale of fights in eve, reduce the server loads, and drop costs, WINNER.

how about you stop being so cheap. buy new servers. stop trying to brake everything and make the game more enjoyable rather then a grind for everything. it will cost to undock soon.

leave it as it is.
make ice belts in 0.0 perma again.

introduce a system for afkers to be booted from servers if found to be in space but inactive.

reduce cloaky campers / increase null sec ice mining . done . and increase rat size to make it not possible to go afk for the chance of being ruined by the rats.

or how about making the pos mods too cpu / power grid heavy for small poses ect and that way you wont get down scaling for posses.

with the price of plex being stupidly expensive its going to push more people out of the game. or is that what ccp wants ?
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#194 - 2014-04-29 16:32:29 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:
Rather then have a linear jump fuel cost as we have now, why not introduce an exponential fuel cost.

This would help nerf power projection by making alliances think twice about jumping at their max range to get places quickly, however it would have a smaller impact on industry because they could make double the amount of jumps they are currently to reduce their travel costs.


they also could just reduce jump range by 50%
5n4keyes
Sacred Templars
Fraternity.
#195 - 2014-04-29 16:33:56 UTC
Fantastic change! support 110%
Shnougle Elguonhs
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#196 - 2014-04-29 16:34:07 UTC
This is ridiculous. These changes will only cause issues for small null-sec and low-sec corps. Not looking forward to this at all.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#197 - 2014-04-29 16:35:04 UTC  |  Edited by: gascanu
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone!


  • Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
  • Although we don't expect this change to significantly impact behavior around jump drive power projection, it should at least provide a small incentive change through higher costs for moving huge capital fleets often. [/list]

    • [b]The plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals.

    .


    i'm sorry, but all i can say is WTF???
    In which way will this fuell expense increase affect an alliance with an several hundred billions month income???
    really? that's all you can came up with? "hey guys, moving a capital fleet will now cost us extra 300 mil out of our 300 billion income/month...we will go broke, haha..."

    How can't a dev understand that this will hurt the small corps/ more that big coalitions, and it's the smallest thing that can have an impact on "power projection"

    Really Fozzie, i'm out of words....
    Shonion
    FREE GATES
    #198 - 2014-04-29 16:35:25 UTC
    5n4keyes wrote:
    Fantastic change! support 110%


    i want from that weed Fozzie shared with you too. Twisted
    Jack Lennox
    Grove Street Families
    #199 - 2014-04-29 16:37:27 UTC
    So basically there's no point in me training into Black Ops anymore. Well, thanks for letting me know before I made it half way through

    Been ganked? Robbed? Space feelings hurt?  Now there's something you can do! Fill out a Customer Service Comment Card!  EIther that or contact everyone's favorite Space Detective for an instant ban!
    Nofearion
    Destructive Brothers
    Fraternity.
    #200 - 2014-04-29 16:39:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Nofearion
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hello everyone!



    The plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals.

    To compensate for the extra isotopes that ships will need to carry, the volume of all four isotopes will be reduced by 1/3, to 0.1m3. Thanks to Resgo for some excellent feedback.

    The storage volume of jump bridge starbase structures will be increased by 50% since Ozone volume won't be changing.

    For reference, this will increase the cost of running a max skilled Rhea from Jita to RIT-A7 (jump drive transit the whole way) from ~50m isk to ~75m isk.


    I understand and See the points, However from a logistic view this will hurt the JF service of most. Not to mention it is already hard for someone deep in null, to get a full round trip out of the existing fuel bay, and that is with Fuel consumption V.
    While I am not totally in favor of this, If you do do it. you should expand the capacity of Jump freighter fuel bays
    I will have to do some math to make a good recommendation. The merit of encouraging to producing local goods, however there will still be a need to import and export raw material.
    my two cents anyway