Player Features and Ideas Discussion

CCP Seagull once said:


http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/eve-online-development-in-2013-and-beyond/

I believe these changes directly effect the current "tools" of Enablers (JFs) in a negative way, which of course means it goes directly against CCP Seagull's stated intentions for the game (and goes directly against what CCP is trying to do with this entire summer expansion).

For those who provide JF services to their Corps/Alliances this will only hurt their fellow 'line members' and even those supplying doctrine fit ships will have to raise their prices which again hurts the 'line member' (whether or not the Corp/Alliance has some form of SRP because the SRP is never going to take shipping into account).

Please rethink what you are trying to accomplish.

If this is really about curtailing power projection, then this should be aimed solely at dreadnoughts, carriers, supercarriers, titans, jump bridges and jump portals. In addition, these vessels should not be able to store isotopes in fleet hangars - which means carriers and supercarriers will be hit the hardest by having their effective operating range seriously curtailed. Black ops and jump freighters should receive a pass - essentially enhancing their range.

Null players still pretending they care about independent small groups in this thread?

Id be okay with the changes if JF werent in the list. I dont want it to become harder to seed a market/maintain reasonable prices.

So, maybe I'm bad at math but...

Currently: 10,000 m3 JF fuel bay = 66,666 isotopes at 0.15m3
First change proposal was: 2x fuel consumption, but 2x fuel bay, 20,000 JF fuel bay = 122,222 isotopes at 0.15m3. This means the JF has the same range.
Second Change: 2x consumption, 10,000 m3 JF fuel bay = 100,000 isotopes at isotope change to 0.1m3.

So, you are now nerfing range by 22.22%, which does not have anything to do with your stated goal. And unless I'm mistaken, you would be nerfing ALL range based on fuel bay capacity.

You could try: -1/3 iso to 0.1m3. (Gives us a nice round number) 2x fuel costs. (for your goals) increase all fuel bays by 25%. (Increase current jump range by 1.02%, while maintaining round numbers.)

Example: 12,500 m3 JF fuel bay = 125,000 isotopes at 0.1m3

Thank you for that quick clarification. So this does keep the range of a ship the same as it was (excluding extra storage in hangers).
It may increase jump costs *IF* CCP doesn't predict the price swings correctly.
(If 50+% of high sec pos' s go dark, it could maybe even cause isotopes to drop by more then 50%. I guess only CCP can see how many by percent of isotopes go to which activities)

After thinking about this I came to the conclusion that I would prefer a large nerf to jump drives on all ship classes.

- Decrease jump range by 30%
- Add a module slot/rig slot for a jump drive and each jump causes 10% damage. Repairable with paste or station services, paste repair would take significant time.
- Traveling in self SOV would reduce damage by 5% (arbitrary numbers)
- Increase Bridge fuel consumption to be on equal level or higher then jump Drive consumption.


Make logistics hurt for the little guys and by proxy they won't be able to (or wont make sense) to rent space, therefore prohibit renter income for the large alliances. No matter how high the cost is, large alliances will always have the upper hand, but by squeezing out the little guys at least renting would suffer, and that can only be a good thing IMHO.

Goals:
Stimulate Isotope market to counter possible decrease in demand
-Releasing restrictions on setting up a POS in high sec will increase supply of POS and increase demand of isotopes
-Increase in demand for POS since it can use Teams w/o increased cost of using station.
-Using Smaller starbases decrease Isotope demand (your assumption)
-*Not sure why you believe people would use Smaller POS TBH as New Station Slots make me want either:
---No POS and just use stations
---Large POS which is very defended while it holds valuable BPO/materials

Help Incourage local resource gathering in 0.0
-Local resource gathering for Isotopes will not increase
---With decreased size isotopes, the cost to import them is not changed

-Local resource gathering for Modules will not increase because they are so small even large cost changes barely effect it.
---Example: If you have 500isk/m3 for 0.0 Alliance JF services, you pay 2500 to move your Damage Control II
---Increasing the cost to 1000isk/m3 increases the cost to move it by 2500 More. Negligible.
---Due to 'economies of scale' (Teams in system and POSes) items can be made cheaper in high sec than 0.0 anyway to make up that hypothetical 2500 isk increase.

-Local resource gathering for Ships will increase, slightly, as Tech 1 is generally made in 0.0 already due to shipping costs
---Nomad w/Freighter 4 can move 2160000 Isotopes before for 50m
---Nomad w/Freighter 4 can move 3240000 Isotopes before for 75m
---Move 50% more isotopes, at 50% increased moving cost.
---*Note: Minerals will still cost more to move just not isotopes

Disincentivize moving huge capital fleets often
-Others have made this obvious: It will not effect huge capital fleets
-It Will effect Jump Freight services: Which costs get pushed to 'line members'

But By:
Increasing Fuel Costs by 50% for Jump drives and Portals
-If you are just trying to increase Isotope usage why specify Jump drives?
-I don't see this change doing anything but disencentivize the use of a Jump Freighter for 'heavy' stuff.

Decreasing volume of Isotopes accordingly
A good idea compared to increasing the fuel bay by 50% because of people already being required to use fleet hanger to hold fuel, even if it is only 2 jumps out and back for a carrier. This is assuming you don't want to change the distance Jump capable ships can go.

CCP didn't realize how Mining Barge changes previously would get everyone in a Mackinaw, obviously CCP shouldn't make patches with the assumption of accurately predict human behavior. It is just obvious they are not good at it. Why don't you just wait and see how isotope price changes? It has already been increasing for the last few months without interference.

This is going to have little effect on the massive alliances you are trying to target for power projection...Instead you are going to make it that much harder for small groups of players to move around resources so they can try to enjoy more of what the game has to offer.

If your truely trying to target power projection, nerf the distance the jump drives can carry the captials, thus increasing the cost, time, and vulnerability of moving the captials.

Another more subtle but potentially great nerf to power projection would be to make it so Titans have to be OUTSIDE POS SHIELD's to open a bridge. This would increase the vulnerability of the Titan's which frequently sit in fairly unguarded systems and POS's requiring coalitions to leave home defense forces in place thus GREATLY nerfing power projection in the process.


Thought's? Just trying to promote coversation of ideas that truely address power projection instead of just hurting smaller groups of players.

Does anyone happen to have a link for the post that talks about the science fittings on being reduced?

I'd like to see how/if this impacts running a reaction POS.