These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: The Price of Change

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kun'ii Zenya
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#481 - 2014-04-30 05:42:06 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Secondly: Blueprint costs are mentioned for copy jobs. What cost is assigned to tech 2 BPOs in this process? Is it some system-generated value that is moderately close to the cost of the most similar T1 BPO, or is it a figure based upon the percieved secondary market value of the print? It might address many of the issues that have come up with T2 BPO copying if the latter is the case, and running a copy job on your Null M BPO is charged based upon a print value of 15 billion ISK.


The cost of copying is straight forward and simple,

Copy Cost = 0.2*cost of the product*sqrt(fraction of global job hours)*other multipliers

So if the T2 item cost 5 million, and the sqrt(fraction of global job hours) is 10% and the other multiplier are say 1.07 then the cost is

5,000,000*.02*1.07*.1 = 10,700 for a 1 run copy.

The cost will scale with the number of runs. So if you are doing a 100 run BPC, then the cost will be 10,700*100 or 1,070,000.

Supposedly you could manufacture and sell 100 of these times off that BPC and make 500,000,000 isk less your manufacturing costs.

So for some invention might stop being a thing and instead they'll switch over to manufacturing from T2 BPCs. People who have T2 BPOs may stop using them for manufacturing and instead go for copying and selling the copies (or building from the copies, or both building and selling depending on the number of alts).

This will likely mean more competition and more T2 items and lower prices.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#482 - 2014-04-30 06:24:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Swidgen wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Without a multiplier, they are completely pointless.

Have you considered the possibility that that is the point?

I rather wish that had not needed to…


So really, direct question to CCP:
What is your perception of the role of POSes in industry high, low, and nullsec in the system we have today?
What is role in industry do you see for POSes in the three areas under this proposed system?


With the first couple of blogs, it looked like you were going for a design where POSes would be the preferred platform for a lot of industry work because stations would be clogged, slow, and costly, but now it seems like POSes offer no real advantage except maybe some speed that lets you flood the market more easily… oh, and you've made them vastly more cumbersome to use with the removal of remote jobs.
slackalice
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#483 - 2014-04-30 06:48:55 UTC  |  Edited by: slackalice
I believe that these industry changes will be a good thing for the overall game. Granted those who have spent hours chasing standings for pos deployment such as myself along with couple years of ME and TE on bpo will find that all the work has been for a lessor result than we may currently experience.

From a personal point of view I see my income suffering as I live from selling bpc and if more are around then less income.
On the other hand if slots will no longer be a problem then researching bpo in stations is a better choice than issues in fuelling a pos. The impact from the way ice belts now spawn is a mute point and does free up PI so many will loose income here.

As with all games we need a constant growth in players and by making manufacturing and researching of bpo easier for knew players to start making isk as well as progress with bpo research copying invention etc will benefit all.

I know when I started the gap between the long term players and knew players was daunting.

However I hope that at some point there are challenges that require dedicated hard work to achieve that bring in benefits warranting the effort e.g standings to place a pos.

I did read that there is some direction in regards to having more T2 bpc or items produced and sold on market the only way I see this as a reality is to make the mats more attainable. Under current conditions as all know chasing data cores decrypters and salvage is not readily available.

At the end of the day I see a knew venture for the big corps through war dec to eliminate the pos's in systems and replace with their own since no standings will be required. Thats if I understood the no standings to drop pos correctly.

So who will own the most moons?
Danastar
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#484 - 2014-04-30 06:49:25 UTC
I apologise if I am going to ask a question already discussed.

How are you going to deal with BPOs that are still being researched at the time of expansion release? I am talking about BPOs that are researched at a pos lab from a station.

Are they going to be moved automatically to the pos lab?
Are they going to stay in the station?
Is the new cost system going to be applied to them as well as different time frames for completing research job?

Also I would like to give my opinion on the concept with the workers runing the facilities in a particular system. I think this concepts is good and should be applied only for stations but not for pos. I find it logical if you start a job in a station, to hire some specialized staff to do it, but if you are setting your own pos, with your own labs and you use your own chars to do that job, you pretty much end up being that specialized staff. Not mentioning the fact that you now pay for having a pos. So leave the pos out of tax, but keep it in the stations - I think this is fair
Deeone
Deadspace Zombie Factory
#485 - 2014-04-30 06:51:55 UTC
Hey CCP i got an ISK sink for u, and it even makes sense with the boosts to null sec. Make player outpost destructable.
BlackTalon
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#486 - 2014-04-30 06:57:31 UTC
What an nightmare for industry players big thanks CCP. The blue print ui and other parts off this next expansion not needed going to make industry to much hassle to do .10 year long industry player was it worth me skilling up for industry for all this time . to make some skills not worth having trained .
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#487 - 2014-04-30 07:28:07 UTC
Here i was thinking you guys would just clean up the UI and lower the clicks needed to run invention, maybe do bpc books or fix pos code, or any of the several hundred things actually asked for.

but instead...

way to **** up.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Yuki Kasumi
Some names are just stupid
#488 - 2014-04-30 07:41:37 UTC
Deeone wrote:
Hey CCP i got an ISK sink for u, and it even makes sense with the boosts to null sec. Make player outpost destructable.


Not really an isk sink. Unless you count the items that have to be bought from NPCs
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#489 - 2014-04-30 07:50:18 UTC
I'm in Iceland, so distracted, and slow to respond to this.

Looks like most of my concerns have already been brought up.


Can we get, in advance of release, an API end point to give an indication of where the 'hotspots' of industry occur? At least in High, low, and npc null? (Sov null I'm in two minds about, due to info leakage).

Something like the old alliance one is probably the best option, as I don't think it'll fluctuate more than daily?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#490 - 2014-04-30 07:51:24 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Here i was thinking you guys would just clean up the UI and lower the clicks needed to run invention, maybe do bpc books or fix pos code, or any of the several hundred things actually asked for.

but instead...

way to **** up.



Go and look at the industry ui blog.

Invention's been brought down to one normal setup, then you can duplicate it with 2 key presses. (not clicks. so faster)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
BlackTalon
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#491 - 2014-04-30 07:53:36 UTC
Nice one ccp going to really make building fun and worth while . Glad I trained them skills up only to be worthless now and all them players took to me and pe up there cap bpo months and isk and poss fuel .After the last expansion with the custome office blitz and xtra tax for industry players doing pi where getting taxed more for building in the future . And the new blueprint ui what an nightmare is that really needed and that suppose to be simple
Aluka 7th
#492 - 2014-04-30 08:22:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
Disclaimer: I manufacture, invent and do all BPO stuff for long time and have high(ish) ME on some prints.

What a bunch of whining babies are some industrialists. Every expansion, ships are nerfed/buffed and when my favorite ship gets nerfed I have to skill for completely other platform/race/weapon/setup and jet lot of you whine for few skills that will be less useful.
When I loose T3 ship I actually loose skill points and I loose more ISK then your large POS spends in 2 months of fuel and you still whine. Get a perspective.

This expansion is awesome!
People can finally research ME/Copy without need for POS.
No need to wait for manufacturing line to free up because someone is hogging it producing unprofitable item 1 jump from trade hub while I wait with very profitable item for line to free up.
People that understand benefit of POSes can anchor them in new systems closer to hubs without that stupid standing thing (kicking/rejoining pilots to modify corp faction standing).
Current math which was actually simple but hidden in guides/forum posts gets on normal level, reducing number of "elite" players that know "the secret" of optimal/perfect ME research.
Those crazy people that research BPOs to insane ME level get the bill for that madness.
Basically it clears the field of people that think work is free or materials are free and makes tedious work little faster and dynamic.





CCP, JUST please implement cheap and "easy" way to remove POSes that are littering space. Idea like hacking POSes that are (only) anchored for more then 30 days comes in mind!

Fly unsafe!
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#493 - 2014-04-30 09:06:37 UTC
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.

The Tears Must Flow
Oxide Ammar
#494 - 2014-04-30 09:13:03 UTC
Really these half baked blogs and CCP vaguely replies give me an indication CCP have zero acknowledgement for Industry in game, it's like the original developers who set stones for industry way back are different the one who are trying to buff it.

The irony is they tried to tackle it thinking they are simplifying it enough to introduce to new players, the thing is they are complicating it more and they are introducing new holes an many unanswered questions that will haunt us for years till they get fixed.

Me and rest of vet indy's were thinking that fixing POS code is the road beginning to fix and enhance industry, but they choose to invent a backdoor to bypass all the hassle from trying fixing the code. Finally they tried to bribe us by buffing labs and assembly arrays multipliers to mistakenly buff the labs to a degree they overlapping with outposts ( then they revert it back).

POS owners has no actual incentive reward vs the risk you are introducing next expansion, In addition you are crippling them by removing the ability to remotely starting ME/TE and they have to prison themselves in systems where they own towers.

From what it looks this another half baked rushed expansion with half answers that will screw us all.... :shake head:

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Uncle Shrimpa
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#495 - 2014-04-30 10:23:48 UTC
Danastar wrote:
I apologise if I am going to ask a question already discussed.

How are you going to deal with BPOs that are still being researched at the time of expansion release? I am talking about BPOs that are researched at a pos lab from a station.

Are they going to be moved automatically to the pos lab?
Are they going to stay in the station?
Is the new cost system going to be applied to them as well as different time frames for completing research job?

Also I would like to give my opinion on the concept with the workers runing the facilities in a particular system. I think this concepts is good and should be applied only for stations but not for pos. I find it logical if you start a job in a station, to hire some specialized staff to do it, but if you are setting your own pos, with your own labs and you use your own chars to do that job, you pretty much end up being that specialized staff. Not mentioning the fact that you now pay for having a pos. So leave the pos out of tax, but keep it in the stations - I think this is fair


They have said they return to station
any job started prior to patch will not incur charges
if you have a research job on, the BPO conversion will happen after the research completes

CCP Greyscale -Yup, we have data on what happens currently, but we're expecting those use patterns to change substantially when this release. There's a degree of "suck it and see" happening here :)
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#496 - 2014-04-30 11:07:59 UTC
Dareth Astrar wrote:
As Per: Third Party Tools
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4527121#post4527121

As all the variables are server based, and you now have realized that these will have to be exposed via API for third-party tools to actually allow us to "attempt" to calculate the costs associated with construction, I do wonder if you've placed thought on the additional load and impact this will place on the API servers as a result of these changes.

Currently most of the figures we require we all have in our software/spreadsheet/XCalculator. This is going to be bringing a lot of extra load to your servers to allow us to try to calculate values, so I think someone needs to do the maths on that aspect and inform the database and server teams really, as it's clear you haven't thought of this point:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4527096#post4527096

From a developers point of view I know this would have been high on my list if you are making sure all the calculation variables are now server side and/or server calculated as would their exposure via API and how to optimize that so as to reduce the impact on the server teams. I think this is going to have a bigger impact then perhaps has been given thought too.

There is lots of software out there written by people for their websites etc to help with the industrial issues, and you perhaps have not given this as much thought as you should. Big smile

Server Side Variables - Accuracy of Impact
Great that you've come up with different calculation formula, but I really think that all these server side variables you are talking about and the rate at which they may change will make it a lot harder for someone installing a long running production batch to know if they will be actually making a profit on the items by the time the products come out the other side. I would think there might actually be some manipulation opportunity for smaller batches with faster changing variable values then initial large batches, but with the less then accurate numbers used so far it's extremely hard for any of us to help you out.

I would like to suggest you do some accurate numbers, based on some actual example values for the following:


  1. High Production/Population Systems like Jita and Nonni
  2. Middle Range Systems
  3. Low Population and Utilization Systems


and show us the actual figures. Then those of us that have spent a decade or many years in industry can actually help with our past experience.


Margins:
I think you are being rather optimistic about the single digit percentage price increases. Even then it seems strange that for someone so closely involved in the restructuring of this to not understand existing margins people make through industry.

Personally whilst the change interests me, as it's the first significant change in a decade of playing this game, I'm doubtful it will do more then just massively increase costs and market prices, whilst drastically reducing them for people that group/clump together or are already based in systems that are high population.

You don't seem to be helping those that already moved out to lower population systems to take advantage of space and facilities, but will now be penalizing them in some of the many variable costs for these additional fees. The nearly 4% increase for the Abaddon example used would seriously cut into most peoples margins.

Is it just me or is there an obvious market-manipulation to day one? Those with an aweful lot of money buy out everything on the market and I mean everything and up all by 20%. Price increases are going to occur for all the cost calculations, and peoples existing base of operations that prices will go up, and personally I think they will go up more then your single digit percentage expectations. Furthermore they then benefit from the reduced cost of installations on day 1 based on the previous averages, and drive up everyone else's prices by the increase in the background price used as the basis for all calculations, or would I be wrong here?

Penalties as high as 10% differential could wipe out the entire profit margin in some lines, and god knows people don't price in their time for effort of moving materials, the cost of the blueprints purchase and research, cost of BPC/BPO use in production. A useful system for industry would have allowed more of these factors to be included in the cost calculations for people.

A very simple other point would be to assign the average unit cost for each item to the stack in which it is kicked out from production, and allow that like items stacked together workout the weighted average so that people know their actual average production cost prior to attempting to place them up for sale, so they know if they are at least attempting to make a profit. Smile


Population Density:
Many years back you removed lots of ore belts from systems that were considered busy mission runner systems, but when the mission agents were balanced and evened out none of those systems received their asteroid belts back again, meaning it didn't further encourage players to operate in those systems. If player population and density is important to reducing costs of some of the variables, you really should consider restoring those removed belts to encourage those miners back into those systems.




Great two posts.

On the API, I'm basically not saying anything because we're not 100% locked in to what is happening when on that front and I don't want to be making promises that I'm not 100% sure of. Everyone is very aware of the need to do this work, it's just not completely mapped out yet.

On cost examples, I'll try and pull some together once Fanfest is over.

[quote=Korthan Doshu][quote="CCP Greyscale"]We are totally open to suggestions for what to do with starbases as they relate to industry. In particular, if...
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#497 - 2014-04-30 11:11:03 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Shall we update the open issues?
(I'm sure I'm missing some or many)

Calculating multiple POS facilities in a system. They want to do it, but not sure how, without performance issues or opening up to exploit (can I online 20 labs, start jobs for discount, offline, online assembly array, start for discount, offline... repeat), and tight on time. Difficulty in that the module doesn't know what tower it is associated with.

Max copies changes? Up max runs to keep copy jobs from becoming the new click-fest? What effects will that have on
invention?

Copy times. Was geometric, not linear. Will it still be? How will that effect changes to max runs/invention?

Modules that used to give copy speed bonus? What to do about those?

What will happen with max-run BPCs created for invention, when/if max runs increases.

Cost to make a 100 run copy 100x more expensive than installing a research job on the same BPO?

Potential for T2 BPO production increased/decreased production from changes to copy time/need to be at POS to build from it at POS.

Corp able to put a tax on its POS facilities to fund the tower from its usage?

Throttling usage of outpost to allow some use, without worrying about exploding cost from over use.

NPC standings effecting install fees at NPC stations?

Partial research tracking to smooth upgrade (don't have to jump my ME 10 to perfect) and so that I don't have to put a BPO into a year's constant research (put it in for a month, take it out and make a bunch of copies, put it back in for another month, repeat 12 times to get it to that perfect.)

Enlarge capacity of assembly arrays minerals to reflect that I can run more jobs at each one instead of multiple jobs from multiple arrays.

POS power and CPU changes now that 1 facility can do the work of many? (may go away if they can fix the "multiple facilities issue")

Abandoned high sec tower removal?

If we're really switching to BPC manufacturing to protect BPO from corp theft, then improved way to market BPCs (contracts suck!)

Limitation on corp offices now that factories have infinite slots.

Adding the ability to build anything at POS (POS Structures and containers to name some that can not currently be built at POS).


Great post, thanks.

Swidgen wrote:
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
CCP Greyscale said on page two of these comments that the idea of the industry changes is not to 'incentivize' nullsec industrial capability.

Something doesn't add up. Kirith Kodachi blogged last week the following:
Kirith Kodachi wrote:

CCP wants to move people to null sec. Not just PvPers, but miners, industrialists, researchers, everyone. Everything in Rubicon and what has followed after since then suggests this direction in bright neon signs. They want farms and fields and populated by pilots toiling in them, and they can't do that while high sec has safer and more profitable (or competitively profitable) farms and fields with lots of room for everyone. So the carrot and the stick approach: make null sec more attractive while making high sec less attractive to do, well anything in.

Then Jester chimed in and called that post "excellent", adding that he couldn't say any more about it because of the NDA. And now Greyscale says they are both wrong? Smells fishy to me.

I probably still wouldn't buy a tinfoil hat from Dinsdale, but something ain't right. Mixed signals are being sent and depending on who you talk to, you get different answers.


So.

We would generally like to ensure that everyone who wants to live in nullsec, can live in nullsec. We would also like people who are willing to consider moving to nullsec to have strong incentives to do so.

We ALSO want to ensure that people who firmly don't want to move to nullsec, continue to enjoy playing in hisec.

This has been our position for many years, nothing has changed in that regard. We can't account for what individual players choose to say on their blogs.

Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

We are totally open to suggestions for what to do with starbases as they relate to industry. In particular, if anyone who does starbase work can spend a few minutes outlining the *simplest* changes they think would be sufficient to keep starbases in a reasonable place for this release, we're very interested in hearing them. Yes, we know "throw it out and start over" would be great, but we're not getting that done between now and the summer release, no matter how much we'd like to.


Suggestion.

Give Labs and Assembly arrays inherent workers. Example : Equipment Assembly Array have 6 Inherent workers. The first 6 jobs (one worker per job) running at the same time will use the basic price and any extra jobs (past number 6) that is running concurrently will use the standard price scalling mechanic as it would apply for any job in the system.

This would effectively give POS owners a price advantage, so maybe the calculation would have to be a discount for the first 6 jobs and then full price. This would effectively give a reason to have more then one module of one type attached to a POS but also keep the unlimited jobs per module option. Having more modules then becomes a ISK vs RISK calculation (should I have more defences online or should I have more assembly arrays online)

I used 6 for the Equip Assembly array because this is the current number of slots this modules gives. Please feel free to change that number to whatever you feel is more appropriate.

If you have an easy, non server intensive way to calculate how many concurrent jobs are running in a single array then this should be somewhat easy to implement. If you don't then this point is moot and forget this suggestion.


This is very clever I...
Steijn
Quay Industries
#498 - 2014-04-30 11:22:14 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We ALSO want to ensure that people who firmly don't want to move to nullsec, continue to enjoy playing in hisec.


The problem is, your making living in high sec very tedious so any 'fun' that there was, is rapidly disappearing.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#499 - 2014-04-30 11:22:41 UTC
(This post out of order because the forum ate it first time.)

mkint wrote:
Fal Dara wrote:
mkint wrote:

Not going through all your math, but I suspect it's broken. All jobs are based on a % of the output. It assumes BPC value is 2% of BPO value. So it's a cost % of the BPC value. So, (being too lazy to verify your origin numbers) that covetor copy would be closer to 400k installation cost at the low end (presumably per licensed run.)

What is not clear is how T2 BPC values are being calculated, since the BPOs are not traded on the market, but the cost of the invention job would be a % of that new BPC output.


the dev stated it's not based on the bpo cost, but based on the mod it would produce... so 2% per run of a t1 railgun.

the dev i quoted first, said that the 2% would apply per copy ... not per job. If that's true, that's 6 t1 railguns worth of cost for the job, to make a 300 run copy. it's that simple. that's about 12m, as-is today. just to make a max-run COPY.

and the dev, when i quoted the covetor, clearly said that it wasnt based on the bpo cost (otherwise a covetor copy would be 40m).

SOOOoo, i'm still a bit lost myself, but, i'm thinking making copies for invention is going to be outrageous if it's 2% of t1 mod cost per run.

I still suspect the math is wrong... So it assumes the output value is 2% of the product value (rather than BPO value) which should make it even cheaper. From that 2% BPC output value, then you pay your 1% to 14% of that to run a copy job.

edit: so using griznit's number above that a covetor BPC worth 600k for the sake of cost calculations, the job cost would be 1-15% depending on facilities, so 6k-90k.


Yes.

LHA Tarawa wrote:
DEFANDER wrote:
Why not make the tax grow the more jobs of THAT SPECIFIC nature are installed in THAT ONE station, instead of using such a formula.


Because tracking it at the solar system is easier. Less data points to track. Ease of implementation is ALWAYS a huge factor in software design.

Then there is the issue of exploitation. What if I just unanchored, then re-anchored the POS? Reset the cost? Track it moon by moon to avid this manipulation by making me move the POS to a new location? They want to move away from the whole POS tied to a moon limitation eventually.



I would love to see a statement from CCP as to the thinking behind the changes.


I suspect the cost based began as a way to remove ISK from the game. We've removed sinks in the form of POS fuel, nanite paste, pos modules. They need some way to drain ISK back out of the game.

I have created new toons and run tutorials just to see the changes. There were times I could not do the industry tutorial because I could not find an open lab slot. As the player base continues to grow, that would only become worse. I understand the desire to move to an unlimited slot paradigm.

And certainly a new UI is an excellent idea!

I think that where things went wrong, is where they always go wrong in agile development. Product management is INSANELY important, but also eliminated by most agile development companies. Agile is supposed to mean Just In Time requirements and design. For too many companies, it becomes "no A&D. Hack something together, get feedback, slap in a quick fix"

Well, we're a month from release, and OHHHH the feedback is coming!


OK, let's talk about thinking!

The goal that Super Friends has been working towards (the last two blogs plus the Teams feature) is to create a more varied industrial landscape that drives interesting gameplay.

For long-term games like EVE, one of the big challenges is to keep things interesting over multiple years. "Interesting gameplay" often, particularly in a more deliberative field like manufacturing, stems from interesting decisions. In order to have gameplay stay interesting for many years, therefore, we need a constant flow of decisions for players to make, which is a thing we feel to be lacking in current industrial gameplay.

In the case of industry, we feel this is (correctly) a slower-paced area of the game, so we want decisions that happen over weeks and months, not hours and minutes. We're also trying to balance the desire to have a landscape, which points primarily at decisions based on geographic differences, with the assumed desire of established industrialists not to have to move around too much.

Thus, what we're trying to create is a system where the landscape will naturally shift over time, causing players to have to re-evaluate their decisions about what to make where over the longer term, and also give players tools to counteract these natural shifts and stabilize their home systems in a state they find useful.

Added to this, we wanted to get rid of slots for a variety of reasons (importantly that they scale badly with population and act as a hard limit which distorts decision-making), so we needed some kind of "soft scarcity" to prevent everyone just camping out in one system. Thus, some kind of demand-based cost system gives us both that soft scarcity, and also a factor to push people apart. The balance between this "push" force and the varying "pull" that Teams will exert gives players two forces to balance against each other, with gameplay deriving from figuring out how to best balance those two forces and looking for places where you can out-decide other players to gain competitive advantage.

The size of the imposed costs is then driven purely by "how can we charge enough for jobs that it actually matters sufficiently to affect decisions, without being big enough to dominate the decisions or drive prices up too hard", and "how can we make the math simple to understand". To repeat what I said earlier, sinking ISK out of the economy had no impact on any design decision; it's up to you whether you want to believe that, of course, but from my point of view as the person...
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#500 - 2014-04-30 11:24:06 UTC
Steijn wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We ALSO want to ensure that people who firmly don't want to move to nullsec, continue to enjoy playing in hisec.


The problem is, your making living in high sec very tedious so any 'fun' that there was, is rapidly disappearing.


To the degree that that is true, we're then failing in one of our design goals.