These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#641 - 2014-07-03 16:25:00 UTC
PL makes a trillion isk a month this doesn't even effect us other than make the beancounters scream about ZOMG were using so many topes. We will just have a few more jumpfreighters at the ready with fuel. But I feel sorry for the little guy who doesn't make much isk. Also this is a nerf to people who live on the edges of nullsec. This change is a hamhanded change to attempt to curtail power projection and ultimately accomplishes nothing. Instead of dealing with a issue you choose to medicate/bandaid.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#642 - 2014-07-04 07:09:14 UTC
Would you care to explain how what you're proposing off in your other thread helps people living at the edge of nullsec, exactly?

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#643 - 2014-07-07 16:00:57 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
PL makes a trillion isk a month this doesn't even effect us other than make the beancounters scream about ZOMG were using so many topes. We will just have a few more jumpfreighters at the ready with fuel. But I feel sorry for the little guy who doesn't make much isk. Also this is a nerf to people who live on the edges of nullsec. This change is a hamhanded change to attempt to curtail power projection and ultimately accomplishes nothing. Instead of dealing with a issue you choose to medicate/bandaid.



Agreed. Little money fees will do nothing but hurt more the weaker groups than the power blocs. And increase a bit the revenue of the peopel that mine ice :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
Somethin Awfull Forums
#644 - 2014-07-09 19:34:20 UTC
Make Jump Fuel Conservation 4 required to fly a carrier, then nullify Jump Fuel conservation 5 by increasing fuel costs 50%.

The more things change the more they stay the same?

R.I.P. Vile Rat

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#645 - 2014-07-10 06:10:24 UTC
I recall something mentioned about lowslot mods for JFs in the freighter change thread. Is this still going on and will it make it time for crius if so?
MHayes
ICON Libertas
Fraternity.
#646 - 2014-07-12 00:54:46 UTC
More Solar systems is a better solution to this problem.
Smugest Sniper
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#647 - 2014-07-13 07:40:40 UTC
Already poor people with carriers(read people who buy shiny **** they can't reasonably afford) have trouble with escaping bad situations and even with Jump Fuel Con 5 it's difficult to operate for long operations when moving your **** out of deep null or even around to a different part of low sec.

Help the Poor, don't take away their only way to live and survive in EVE.
Anthar Thebess
#648 - 2014-07-14 08:09:06 UTC
1.Make Capitals unable to jump between regions.
2.Make Titan bridges unable to jump between regions.
3.Make Jumpbriges limited to one region.
4.Increase size of regional gates - so capital ships can use them.

You are increasing fuel usage while not demoting local (regional) capital ship movement.
Additional benefit : significant nerf to power projection.
sabastyian
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#649 - 2014-07-15 17:45:34 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
1.Make Capitals unable to jump between regions.
2.Make Titan bridges unable to jump between regions.
3.Make Jumpbriges limited to one region.
4.Increase size of regional gates - so capital ships can use them.

You are increasing fuel usage while not demoting local (regional) capital ship movement.
Additional benefit : significant nerf to power projection.

Jump bridges are limited to one region, you jump to the next via gate and go on your way iirc.
Regional gates would have to increase 50x fold to fit a titan.
Titan bridges Limited to on region can also have a huge effect on alliances that live in regions that are a total of maybe 25 systems. like 10 of which are in low-sec.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#650 - 2014-07-15 21:07:09 UTC
is there any update or input on the jump fuel reduction modules promised with the jump freighter nerf?
Lilla Kharn
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#651 - 2014-07-16 04:45:13 UTC
Can we at least see if there is a problem before we fix it? Like others have said before me, there are many variables that this fix does not take into consideration and appears to straight jump the gun on fixing...what exactly?

Nerfing the smaller people does nothing except help the power blocs and the.... oh right. Got it.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#652 - 2014-07-16 13:56:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Syrias Bizniz
Am i getting this right?


Fuel consumption goes up by 50%.
Fuel Volume goes down by 66%.

So when i was using 10k m³ of Fuel for traveling, i would now use 15k m³ of fuel, but with the reduction in volume, it would only be 5k m³?

So all in all, more Fuel for travel, while jumping costs 50% more ISK?


If so,

why is this hurting smaller entities to a bigger degree than big entities?


Edit:

Aaaah, found it. Get's reduced by 1/3, rather than to 1/3.

So volume of fuel consumed stays the same, and price goes up.


Stillm why do small entities have more trouble with the ISK?
Moving a few Carriers around would cost 50% more ISK, but 50% of 'a bit' is 'half a bit', and 50% of 'a fortune' is 'half a fortune'.
Anthar Thebess
#653 - 2014-07-16 13:58:26 UTC
Renters ; moon go.
Smaller groups don't have this.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#654 - 2014-07-16 14:02:40 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Renters ; moon go.
Smaller groups don't have this.



Well, using a capital army to defend smaller Moon-Goo towers will now quickly explode the costs of defending it, to a point where it might be unprofitable for large entities to blap and maintain the smaller towers.
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
#655 - 2014-07-16 15:00:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Khiluale Zotakibe
@ CCP Fozzie

I'm sorry if someone mentioned this before but wouldn't it make more sense to just increase the fuel bay sizes by 50% instead?

With the reduction of the fuel volume there's no change to power projection besides the cost (considering that prices of fuel remain unchanged), while with the fuel bay size increase there would actually be a reduction of how far a ship can go without resupplying.

As an example (using representative units to make it simpler to understand):

Consider the following route from A to D:

A ------ B ------ C ------ D

Now:

Fuel bay capacity: 10 units
Fleet Hangar Capacity: 20 units

Going from A to B takes 10 units
Going from B to C takes 10 units
Going from C to D takes 10 units

Which means that a carrier is capable of going from A to D without having to pick extra fuel on the way.

Crius (with fuel size reduction):

Fuel bay capacity: 15 units
Fleet Hangar Capacity: 30 units

Going from A to B takes 15 units
Going from B to C takes 15 units
Going from C to D takes 15 units

Which means that a carrier is still capable of going from A to D without having to pick extra fuel on the way.

Crius (with fuel bay size increase):

Fuel bay capacity: 15 units
Fleet Hangar Capacity: 20 units

Going from A to B takes 15 units
Going from B to C takes 15 units
Going from C to D takes 15 units

Which means that a carrier is still capable of going from A to C without having to pick extra fuel on the way but will need to resupply to get to D.

This would make it harder to quickly deploy a cap fleet across the universe, not impossible, just harder as it would require a bigger logistics effort to maintain fuel at the resupply points, thus nerfing to some degree the power projection.

Edit: To address the Black ops issue, why not just increase the fuel bay in a much higher degree so that the cargo capacity becomes irrelevant (that or a small fleet hangar, similar to the approach made on the Deep space transports).

But this is just my view on the subject.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#656 - 2014-07-18 05:49:34 UTC
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
@ CCP Fozzie

I'm sorry if someone mentioned this before but wouldn't it make more sense to just increase the fuel bay sizes by 50% instead?


No because some poor bastard has to haul all that fuel to the places where its needed. It's not like the capital pilots in power-blocks haul their own fuel for strategic ops.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#657 - 2014-07-19 03:20:42 UTC
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
is there any update or input on the jump fuel reduction modules promised with the jump freighter nerf?



Now that the Patch notes have been released we see that CCP has chosen to break their promise and further nerf jump freighters. No indication of any promised jump fuel reduction modules that they said would come out with the fuel changes.
Bob Newton
Doomheim
#658 - 2014-07-21 05:47:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.
As mentioned in this dev blog, we are shifting the release of the industry changes back to the Crius release on July 22nd in order to ensure that we have time to incorporate all of your feedback and have extended testing on SISI.

Since this change is so closely tied with the industry updates, we are also going to hold off on it for the time being. We will not change the isotope consumption in Kronos, and we will continue to discuss and evaluate our plan with the next potential release window being Crius on July 22nd.


Dear CCP Fozzie,

Ever since this was first posted on 2014.04.29 13:27 by you, I have been quietly watching this thread on different people's reactions, proposed changes and such, since it concerns me too. The general feeling I get is that most people disapprove of it and so do I.

While I agree that with POS/Industry changes, it will affect the ice market. But frankly I do not believe this is the right way to go about it, for starters, I thought EVE's market is driven by players, also when did CCP actively think of market repercussions every time they change something? When there is a change, it will inevitably affect prices of certain items, are CCP going to do something about those too? If this is your ultimate solution to power projection, well, I am sorry, but I and many many others fail to see how this is going to affect anyone but the small guy. Would you care to explain your reasoning and decision making process for such a change? Which leads me to the next point...

There have been many ideas and discussions by others that are absolutely great, while some not so great, but the thing that infuriates me the most is not so much in the change itself and the problems it does not solve and creates more because of the previous problems and mistakes you've created and then you aim to solve them by introducing more problems. So what few birds did you hit with one stone? I think many people just wants to hit you with one stone.

You see? When you come to mind all I can think of is problems... and I really would like to wish all sorts of nasty for your demise beyond the normal human imagination which I must refrain from saying.

So back on topic, your last reply was 2014.05.12 18:40, a whole 2 months ago and a bit more, what attempts have you made to communicate with the players concerned regarding their ideas and feedback? Care to further explain into your reasoning and thought process that makes this change at all reasonable sounding? With regards to local resource gathering, are you adding different racial ice to all regions? are you suggesting that different regions should standardise on their capital and POS tower use based on their local ice instead? how about certain towers are unable to even fit complex reactions?

CCP Fozzie, I am sure you are probably a great guy in person and perhaps skilled at doing what your job requires, but from my point of view, a player's point of view, you are horrible and I really dont see what you are skilled at apart from infuriating the players who frankly are also customers. So perhaps you may want to start by addressing some of the questions us players have not necessarily mine.

Kind Regards,
Bob Newton

PS: I hope my reply is within allowable specification, as I believe it is on topic and expresses my feeling towards the change and of the developer involved with as little off topic as possible. However should it not be, I will repost it on a forum where it allows for discussion, because frankly, I dont see discussion, just announcement of poorly thought out changes forced upon players.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#659 - 2014-07-21 16:38:54 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
@ CCP Fozzie

I'm sorry if someone mentioned this before but wouldn't it make more sense to just increase the fuel bay sizes by 50% instead?


No because some poor bastard has to haul all that fuel to the places where its needed. It's not like the capital pilots in power-blocks haul their own fuel for strategic ops.


Account bound topes!!!! No more hauling of topes for someone else!!! The logistic nightmare now is TOTALLY on the cap user's shoulder!!!! This will TOTALLY solve the problem of people being able to jump across the universe nearly at will because noone will ever want to deal with havng a cap AND the fuel logistics of such trip!!!!

Alyssa Haginen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#660 - 2014-07-21 19:34:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Alyssa Haginen
Where are the low slot fuel conservation modules that were coming with this change?

Some people seem to think your fuel capacity will increase after this update which is not true.

Fuel cost will stay the same as pointed out in future posting.

One more thing it does is ruins the covert jump portal because it will take 3/4 tank of fuel to jump one plate fit recon.