These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sarah Nahrnid
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Goonswarm Federation
#461 - 2014-05-01 02:25:59 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:

:words:

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.


Tell me more about how this affects Nullsec power blocs when we have people who mine 23/7 in drones (for example) and make 30-40b ISK per month.

This affects nothing for larger entities and only affects smaller entities.

TL;DR screwing the little guy and making no difference to the larger ones.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#462 - 2014-05-01 02:40:26 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.



"so we intend to decide upon player reactions to a rule set that hasn't even been explained in full yet let alone player tested or explored, in order to push forward a solution that doesn't actually address the original cause of the situation we're trying to compensate for with the undertone of trying to mess with power projection that isn't even half the monstrous problem that everyone is crying that it is."

now don't get me wrong here, predicting behaviour ahead of time is a very useful skill, last time i used it against you personally i predicted every move in sequence you'd command your actor fleet to use against what was left of mine, so i do know it's a very good skill to be able to use.

but what you're trying to do here and now goes beyond irresponsibility into the realms of outright stupidity.

this summer expansion you are doing something your organisation hasn't bothered to do in a very long time, and that is to change the rules of the eve universe - we all hope in a way that'll make the game more interesting to play - but unlike what you're doing here we're still reserving judgement until we've actually seen how this'll work.

and that is exactly what I am going to advise you to do now: nothing.

the cause of this ice problem was most likely your alterations to harvester time and spawn mechanics of ice fields, thus your first priority order should be to simply scale those back so gathering ice isn't as quick and simple as breathing - that'll reduce supply and bring prices back to a more reasonable spot - something you say is your plan. and actually removes the source of the problem you say there is now.

wait 6 months after the first real (summer) expansion you're going to have released in about 2.5 years, see what the players actually use your new rules to do THEN decide if you need to start messing with child systems in order to compensate for the problems your earlier changes to the parent system've caused.

your people are far too intelligent to make such simple development mistakes so frequently. please, do your job and do it responsibly we could all use some breathable air. (i will not ask for fresh air from you yet that'd be too much)
if your aim is to fix the problem being caused by something then address the mechanics that actually cause the error don't go messing with additional systems while ignoring the original cause it'll just compound the problem.

(that said, by all means continue trying to cure the disease by burying symptoms if you value the height of your workload over the quality and stability of your mechanics)
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#463 - 2014-05-01 02:59:00 UTC
Wedgetail wrote:
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.



"so we intend to decide upon player reactions to a rule set that hasn't even been explained in full yet let alone player tested or explored, in order to push forward a solution that doesn't actually address the original cause of the situation we're trying to compensate for with the undertone of trying to mess with power projection that isn't even half the monstrous problem that everyone is crying that it is."

now don't get me wrong here, predicting behaviour ahead of time is a very useful skill, last time i used it against you personally i predicted every move in sequence you'd command your actor fleet to use against what was left of mine, so i do know it's a very good skill to be able to use.

but what you're trying to do here and now goes beyond irresponsibility into the realms of outright stupidity.

this summer expansion you are doing something your organisation hasn't bothered to do in a very long time, and that is to change the rules of the eve universe - we all hope in a way that'll make the game more interesting to play - but unlike what you're doing here we're still reserving judgement until we've actually seen how this'll work.

and that is exactly what I am going to advise you to do now: nothing.

the cause of this ice problem was most likely your alterations to harvester time and spawn mechanics of ice fields, thus your first priority order should be to simply scale those back so gathering ice isn't as quick and simple as breathing - that'll reduce supply and bring prices back to a more reasonable spot - something you say is your plan. and actually removes the source of the problem you say there is now.

wait 6 months after the first real (summer) expansion you're going to have released in about 2.5 years, see what the players actually use your new rules to do THEN decide if you need to start messing with child systems in order to compensate for the problems your earlier changes to the parent system've caused.

your people are far too intelligent to make such simple development mistakes so frequently. please, do your job and do it responsibly we could all use some breathable air. (i will not ask for fresh air from you yet that'd be too much)
if your aim is to fix the problem being caused by something then address the mechanics that actually cause the error don't go messing with additional systems while ignoring the original cause it'll just compound the problem.

(that said, by all means continue trying to cure the disease by burying symptoms if you value the height of your workload over the quality and stability of your mechanics)

This sure is an awful lot of words for a 33,725,996.07 isk increase in the cost of a full tank of Rhea nitropes. This is a 100 isk/m^3 increase. Have you considered that the adjustment just isn't that severe?

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#464 - 2014-05-01 03:02:33 UTC
Hell, I pay 16m rewards on couriers in highsec. It just isn't enough isk to cut significantly into any profit margin that is actually worth a shit.

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

Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#465 - 2014-05-01 03:04:52 UTC
Querns wrote:


This sure is an awful lot of words for a 33,725,996.07 isk increase in the cost of a full tank of Rhea nitropes. This is a 100 isk/m^3 increase. Have you considered that the adjustment just isn't that severe?


the adjustment itself isn't the issue - the reason for proposing it and the thinking leading to the choice it was necessary in the first place is.

"your method doesn't mitigate the reason ice is over abundant in the first place it just tries to pretend the errors that caused the abundance never happened for no practical reason"

is the line of thinking - if there genuinely was a problem that could only be solved by messing with fuel consumption then sure, however fuel wasn't the cause of the market price falls, changes to harvesting of ice was, so jump drive consumption is trying to cure a disease with the symptom and that's the part i rant about :)
Valterra Craven
#466 - 2014-05-01 05:18:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Fozzie, I think this change is a bit premature.

In other words you have no data on how much or how little POS use will be affected by the proposed indy changes thus far. This is especially true since it seems like you guys are trying to nail down just what to do in order to still make it worthwhile to have multiple arrays/labs at once. So if you come up with a solution to that you've just radically increased costs for everyone...

In that vien I have an interesting idea for pos that fits in with the infinite jobs idea and still keeps them needed in bulk:


Parallelism.

In other words the "killer feature" of POS would be to allow you to break up research jobs/prodcution jobs in parallel to complete them faster.

You have two labs, you can break the research up on an infinite number of BPOS (limited by player skills) to complete twice as fast and so and so forth.

I did some rough estimates, and it looks like with a dread gur tower and assuming labs cpu cost of 500 cpu would allow you to have 15 labs at once if that's all you put on it. So to balance this you could either hugely increase the cpu cost so that it wouldn't be wise to go over 3-4 labs, or limit the amount of jobs that you could run in parallel. (I'd say balance it on the average number of labs people run now). I'd also mess with the current numbers that labs give bonuses to so that they are closer to NPC stations. In this way, POS don't compete with NPC/Null stations in the same way, or don't give them any bonuses at all since this one is so powerful. (I haven't looked at production arrays, but the same principles apply here)
Midori Tsu
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
#467 - 2014-05-01 05:30:16 UTC
I agree, it's a bit premature to make this change at the moment. If it turns out that it is needed, that's fine, but don't fix what isn't broken.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#468 - 2014-05-01 11:11:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
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.

CCP Fozzie; You really have lost contact with eve as a game haven't you?

Prices of Isotopes have increased by a little over 1/3rd since this was announced. So the cost of running a max skill Rhea just went from 50 mil to just under 100 mil.

The last time Devs played with market manipulation with mining changes, prices for isotopes went for around 400 to 1000 and settled at around 500 to 700. This new bash at market manipulation should post patch see prices settle at between 850 to the current 1000. Adding approximately 1/3rd to projected price increases.

The amount of jump fuel consumed vs the amount used for pos fuel - The way I use my capitals currently, around 25,000 pos's would have to be removed to justify your proposal. That is just based on my usage, so multiply that by the amount of capitals in use, your expecting at a rough guess over 2 million Pos's to be removed from the game due to industry changes.

Quote:
Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
Funny, just wayyyy too funny.



These changes just so clearly smack of;
CCP needs to sell more plex so we need to manipulate the "player driven" market and force prices up to the ridiculous, so people need to buy plex just to be able to fly and buy ships they have trained years for.
OR
(My personal thoughts); The Devs doing this really have no idea ( or have lost sight of) how eve works and are simply making it up as they go.

My suggestion, give lead Devs 1 months pay to do nothing but play eve. Spend the 1st week as a rookie toon, just starting out. Then spend the next 3 weeks playing a toon with skills representative of the average player.
Play both to your own play style but no using dev contacts to advance yourself.. IE; no joining a nulsec blob by telling recruiters who you are.

I think most of the Devs who did this would find, the game they are trying to balance and improve is very different from what they perceive it to be.
Statistics and metrics don't show anything close to what it is like living day to day as an eve player.


1st we'll lower skill requirements to get people to train into capitals, then (so devs can get a free laugh) make them unusable for all but the richest by more than doubling the cost to run them. (nul blobs will see little change in use as they can afford the increased costs - to protect current holdings and take new space)

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

boernl
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#469 - 2014-05-01 11:17:57 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
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.

CCP Fozzie; You really have lost contact with eve as a game haven't you?

Prices of Isotopes have increased by a little over 1/3rd since this was announced. So the cost of running a max skill Rhea just went from 50 mil to just under 100 mil.

The last time Devs played with market manipulation with mining changes, prices for isotopes went for around 400 to 1000 and settled at around 500 to 700. This new bash at market manipulation should post patch see prices settle at between 850 to the current 1000. Adding approximately 1/3rd to projected price increases.

The amount of jump fuel consumed vs the amount used for pos fuel - The way I use my capitals currently, around 25,000 pos's would have to be removed to justify your proposal. That is just based on my usage, so multiply that by the amount of capitals in use, your expecting at a rough guess over 2 million Pos's to be removed from the game due to industry changes.

Quote:
Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.
Funny, just wayyyy too funny.



These changes just so clearly smack of;
CCP needs to sell more plex so we need to manipulate the "player driven" market and force prices up to the ridiculous, so people need to buy plex just to be able to fly and buy ships they have trained years for.
OR
(My personal thoughts); The Devs doing this really have no idea ( or have lost sight of) how eve works and are simply making it up as they go.

My suggestion, give lead Devs 1 months pay to do nothing but play eve. Spend the 1st week as a rookie toon, just starting out. Then spend the next 3 weeks playing a toon with skills representative of the average player.
Play both to your own play style but no using dev contacts to advance yourself.. IE; no joining a nulsec blob by telling recruiters who you are.

I think most of the Devs who did this would find, the game they are trying to balance and improve is very different from what they perceive it to be.
Statistics and metrics don't show anything close to what it is like living day to day as an eve player.


1st we'll lower skill requirements to get people to train into capitals, then (so devs can get a free laugh) make them unusable for all but the richest by more than doubling the cost to run them. (nul blobs will see little change in use as they can afford the increased costs - to protect current holdings and take new space)



finaly a post i can agree with completly
Omi Motsu
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#470 - 2014-05-01 13:57:55 UTC
Well this is another stupid decision in a long string of stupid decisions that again benefit high SP players and large corporations/alliances. I thought the advent of depleting ice fields was meant stimulate the ice economy and increase competition. hasn't changed a thing. The current mechanics involving jump ships has seen more players move to nullsec then I have seen in long time through alliance renting who would have normally not considered going nullsec, now you have just made it cost 150% more for people to move to nullsec and do business. Way to go

There is not one argument within this thread that has convinced me that this is a good thing for the game. In my view CCP your beginning to destroy a good game, soon it will be an average game it is just to hard for new players to get involved in the game without 2 years of investment and even then it is difficult to enjoy the game.

But everyone should realise by now that it doesn't matter what the community wants, CCP don't care and the changes will go ahead no matter what everyone says.


Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#471 - 2014-05-01 17:35:31 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Part of the reason I posted this before Fanfest is so that we could take advantage of all the feedback possible, but that also means that we'll be a bit slower replying to threads for the next couple days. Rest assured that we'll make it up to you next week, and we're not forgetting about this thread.


TRANSLATION:

We posted this CR4P at this time hoping that the hype over Fanfest would put it at the back of people's minds and help them to forget what a complete pile of sh1t it is.

Oh, and just like in the past, we are bringing it in anyway, regardless of any negative feed back.... which we will ignore completely and just highlight one or two posts that think its an awesome idea.




ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#472 - 2014-05-01 20:55:59 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.


4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.


5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.


26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.



Thread reopened.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Sheimi Madaveda
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#473 - 2014-05-01 23:02:48 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

*snip*

Thread reopened.


Ezwal, I appreciate the work you do, but you did just scare me. I suppose I would have received a warning if I had done anything wrong, so I'm not going to worry about what's gone.

Anyways, not sure why Ezwal deleted this, but the jump drive stuff will stay the same distance:

Adding 50% is the same as +1/2, so you consume 3/2. Now, you're reducing the size of isotopes by 1/3, so 3/3 - 1/3 = 2/3.

3/2 * 2/3 = 6/6 = 1. Back where we started :)

Arma Purgatorium - Once for the State, Now for the King Low Sec, PvP, Industrial - Open for Recruiting http://armapurgatorium.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/arpur_recruit1.pngĀ 

TheMercenaryKing
Ultimatum.
#474 - 2014-05-01 23:42:47 UTC
Sheimi Madaveda wrote:
ISD Ezwal wrote:
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

*snip*

Thread reopened.


Ezwal, I appreciate the work you do, but you did just scare me. I suppose I would have received a warning if I had done anything wrong, so I'm not going to worry about what's gone.

Anyways, not sure why Ezwal deleted this, but the jump drive stuff will stay the same distance:

Adding 50% is the same as +1/2, so you consume 3/2. Now, you're reducing the size of isotopes by 1/3, so 3/3 - 1/3 = 2/3.

3/2 * 2/3 = 6/6 = 1. Back where we started :)


The problem most of us have is not that the range will change. The problem is that the change will increase the cost of fuel to jump by 50% (1.5x current cost). The reason they give for this change is market speculation. There is no solid evidence that the market for isotopes will change at all after this expansion. If anything, at which point CCP should just come out and say it. is they want to make it harder for alliance to move around capital fleets. If that is the case, they are doing it wrong because they are hurting smaller entities the most by this idea.
Andy Koraka
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#475 - 2014-05-02 00:27:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Koraka
I guess what I ask myself looking at this change is:

"How would this change improve the overall quality of gameplay, and make the game more fun?"

On the positive side, the guy ISBoxing 20 Mackinaws while watching Netflix gets an income buff.

On the negative side, this change adds significant inertia against player interactions for almost everyone involved in 0.0 game play. Overcoming inertia is distinctly unfun.

No, I'm not even referring to Capital combat, because when an FC decides whether or not to commit (at a minimum) tens of billions in ships, the fuel cost isn't a factor. (it usually gets reimbursed anyway)

I'm referring to subcaps, primarily the logistics surrounding them. Right now the lion's share of inertia that makes EvE unfun involves finding a fight, nothing is less fun than taking a 60 gate roam through mostly empty space and wasting 2 hours. To overcome the inertia of distance players routinely "deploy" to hot-spot regions in search of conflict. After this change goes live, groups will still need to deploy to find content because Dominion era Sov has no conflict drivers accessible to anything less than a full subcap fleet. The only difference is that your average player will have to spend more un-fun time grinding ISK to access the fun parts of EvE.

I know there's supposed to be a long term nullsec-industry angle this change is working towards, but the reality is that large scale nullsec industry is not viable, and even after the proposed summer changes it still won't be viable, so players will end up eating the extra jump fuel cost.

I don't really see any way this change makes the game better or more fun, which I think would be a priority since having fun is what keeps players from unsubbing.
Sheimi Madaveda
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#476 - 2014-05-02 01:21:53 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
The problem most of us have is not that the range will change. The problem is that the change will increase the cost of fuel to jump by 50% (1.5x current cost). The reason they give for this change is market speculation. There is no solid evidence that the market for isotopes will change at all after this expansion. If anything, at which point CCP should just come out and say it. is they want to make it harder for alliance to move around capital fleets. If that is the case, they are doing it wrong because they are hurting smaller entities the most by this idea.


Oh, I understand the worries just fine. I'm among one of those small groups that uses JF quite often. It's just nice to explain things in terms that most people can grasp versus showing lots of % signs and giving open-ended statements.

The fact that this hits JFs makes me frown, but I don't know just how it will turn out in the end, despite the appearance of bad news. There's a lot of changes coming after all :s

Arma Purgatorium - Once for the State, Now for the King Low Sec, PvP, Industrial - Open for Recruiting http://armapurgatorium.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/arpur_recruit1.pngĀ 

ButtFungus
SOONWAFFE
#477 - 2014-05-02 01:25:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.
For now I just wanted to drop by and make sure you know that we're not ignoring this thread, I'm reading everything.

I'll be collecting together and answering/discussing some of the points raised soon. Part of the reason I posted this before Fanfest is so that we could take advantage of all the feedback possible, but that also means that we'll be a bit slower replying to threads for the next couple days. Rest assured that we'll make it up to you next week, and we're not forgetting about this thread.


Please pay careful attention to the corps/alliances represented in this thread. I have seen posts from Major Power Blocks and posts from the smallest indy corps all agreeing on something. This is nearly unheard of in Eve, and it happened in response to your idea, Fozzie. It appears to be the opinion of all that your plan is a bad idea.
The reasons vary, but all seem to agree that the plan is poorly thought out, the reasons given seem like reverse justifying a decision you have already made, and that the plan has a "hidden" agenda in regards to power projection.
You have proven you listen to us here by changing the fuel bay increase to an isotope volume reduction based on a player's post. I urge you to listen to the underlying tone of the messages in this thread now. People are baffled by your decision and the reasons behind it. When people don't understand the decisions their leaders make, they begin to question whether the leaders can make good decisions, and begin to lose faith in them. If you aren't open with us now about this change, players are going to lose faith in you Fozzie. You've brought a lot to Eve, and it would be a shame to see all your future ideas met with scorn simply because they came from you.
Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#478 - 2014-05-02 02:47:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
ButtFungus wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.
For now I just wanted to drop by and make sure you know that we're not ignoring this thread, I'm reading everything.

I'll be collecting together and answering/discussing some of the points raised soon. Part of the reason I posted this before Fanfest is so that we could take advantage of all the feedback possible, but that also means that we'll be a bit slower replying to threads for the next couple days. Rest assured that we'll make it up to you next week, and we're not forgetting about this thread.


Please pay careful attention to the corps/alliances represented in this thread. I have seen posts from Major Power Blocks and posts from the smallest indy corps all agreeing on something. This is nearly unheard of in Eve, and it happened in response to your idea, Fozzie. It appears to be the opinion of all that your plan is a bad idea.
The reasons vary, but all seem to agree that the plan is poorly thought out, the reasons given seem like reverse justifying a decision you have already made, and that the plan has a "hidden" agenda in regards to power projection.
You have proven you listen to us here by changing the fuel bay increase to an isotope volume reduction based on a player's post. I urge you to listen to the underlying tone of the messages in this thread now. People are baffled by your decision and the reasons behind it. When people don't understand the decisions their leaders make, they begin to question whether the leaders can make good decisions, and begin to lose faith in them. If you aren't open with us now about this change, players are going to lose faith in you Fozzie. You've brought a lot to Eve, and it would be a shame to see all your future ideas met with scorn simply because they came from you.


Well, let's not go crazy. The Universal Brotherhood of Frozen Liquid Local 632 is quite happy with this proposed change. Nothing like government handouts to get the union vote to rally up :ObamaIce:
Venix
An Eye For An Eye
Phoebe Freeport Republic
#479 - 2014-05-02 03:53:24 UTC
"Dislike Button"
zentary
Ganja Labs
Exodus.
#480 - 2014-05-02 04:35:00 UTC
well ccp you've failed again. Thank you and good night.

Because we do something to break something lets just jack **** up by 50%. Yeah that makes perfect sense.

How about decrease amount of isk made in high sec and low sec first. Then you wouldn't have such a huge surplus of isk. Seriously what's the point of allowing someone to make more isk in high and low sec than 00? The whole point to 00 was making the big bucks back when i first started playing eve.