These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Survey for Science & Industry - Your opinion matters!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
AnotherUseless Alt
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#141 - 2014-06-04 21:48:13 UTC
"Your opinion matters..."






Wasn't April 1st a few months ago?

"Self help is all in your head"
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#142 - 2014-06-05 18:42:06 UTC
This survey done yet? It's occupying a sticky spot and I see the meter maid rounding the corner again....
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2014-07-01 22:16:05 UTC
I think that the refining nerf is a huge mistake. You already have had an accelerated problem with mudflation since incursions released in which all of a players time is spent earning server created isk.

You changed drone compounds which were 100% player isk to bounty payouts which are 100% server created isk.

You've nerfed loot drops repeatedly and come out with ships and mods to make scooping up loots quicker which again means a higher percentage of time in game spent earning server isk versus player isk.

These industry changes as they are being sold is largely just a mechanic intended to force non-PvP indy players into null like lemmings to the slaughter.

I think you need to look at the Provi game play and get rid of passive incomes especially moon goo. If you want more players in null you need to make it so that all income from null needs to be active and make it so that the most profitable way for a corp to operate their space is to attract more players and have it get used. Currently the mechanics for isk making are to lock down as much null as possible and make it as empty, unfriendly and inhospitable as possible.

I'm not really sure why you want to introduce this expansion which will only encourage people to lock down null even harder and then try and force people into that unfriendly environment and then think it's a type of gameplay that will attract more people.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli
Anthar Thebess
#144 - 2014-07-14 14:04:18 UTC
Reason for refining and reprocessing nerf is simple.
More income to miners -> more AFK mining in higsec -> more mining accounts.

Currently CCP actions managed to reduce active player base to levels i 2008, we will see what focusing on industry will "yeld" them in the long term.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Tennej
LoTax POCO Company of HiSEC
#145 - 2014-07-17 05:39:05 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Reason for refining and reprocessing nerf is simple.
More income to miners -> more AFK mining in higsec -> more mining accounts.

Currently CCP actions managed to reduce active player base to levels i 2008, we will see what focusing on industry will "yeld" them in the long term.


Yep.... I've dropped all 3 of extra my mining accounts......

You Miners think you have it so damn tough.  When I first started playing we didnt even have mining lasers.  You had to fly close to an asteroid.....pop a hatch and gnaw at it with your teeth.   - Bitter Vet
Laura Belle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2014-07-17 18:16:52 UTC
I don't like the invention change! in fact I hate it!

In short - you gonna take the whole market up.

1st of all, a question,
if u gonna make the production material cost 50% higher and ME0 has -10 waste.. how exactly its ending in (1.5/1.091) 37.5% higher and not 65.5% (1.5*1.091) higher?

now, to put the long version of my opinion on the table.
going with the 37.5%, that means that per excelence - if comparing to now, each ME0 BPC will give production cost equal to -2.75ME nowadays.

ok, but unlike now when we can negate it with decryptor back to -20 waste, we'll be able to take off the price only 3% so 1.375*.97 = ~1.334 times a perfect BPC give now

comparing to the 1.2 we have now we're talking on a raise of 11% in production cost (1.334/1.2) and there is NO way cheaper decryptors can negate such a raise).
Sentenced 1989
#147 - 2014-07-29 14:05:18 UTC
Add ME/TE preview

You can't see ME/TE requirements if you don't have a BPO at that level, that's kinda pointless. Especially for example if you already have the BPO but it's in manufacture already, you can't check what you need to buy for next run on the same blueprint. You have to go to 3rd party websites or use contacts to find replica of ME/TE levels you want to check and then right click to use in industry to get general idea.

So suggestion, on manufacture screen add preview button where you can change ME/TE levels and see how materials react so we can eliminate the need to minimize game to find answers somewhere else

The Incursion Guild

Epic Arc Guide
ACY GTMI
Veerhouven Group
#148 - 2014-08-03 04:05:21 UTC
Team 'Game Of Drones'? That says it all.
Kiwinoob
Perkone
Caldari State
#149 - 2014-10-08 07:55:53 UTC
Well the survey is closed but hopefully suggestions are still being accepted.

With the changes to null sec travel there is more of a push for indy to head out into null, which is great but pointless for T1 modules as people would be mad to fit them. It would be nice to have some way of producing named modules so that we could actually produce items that were relevant.

If you had an optional additive component in manufacturing (like decryptors but lets call them 'bananas' for clarity) that gave a chance of the module being named (better 'bananas' = better chance for named) then there would be much more demand for T1 module production in null sec.

It would also be nice to see rats drop less named modules and more 'bananas'. The end result would be a similar availability of named modules but it would be player driven instead of just a drop which means more fun to be spread around.

Devs are nothing more than machines that turn coffee into code. The quality of the code is inversly proportional to the quality of the coffee.
Satan's Spawn
Satan's Enterprises
#150 - 2014-10-29 11:43:47 UTC
Have to say, this whole redesign of production is a game changer.

To be able to build a business model around these fluctuating variables is ludicrous.

Aside from that, far to many clicks, it doesn't even remeber the last use destination.

Manufacture worked far better before. It wasn't broken, don't try and fix it. Total waste of development money. Aside from the window lag issue which slows down the whole process. Right click, build, right click build, worked so much better.

The whole team thing - inventor of that idea needs to be shot. This whole thing will see me try it for a few weeks more, before I hang up my coat and stop paying fees. Yeah, there'll be enough people who will make profit in game sure, but real money fee base will fall. Great move. Just 'cos fees have been going up, doesn't mean they can't come down.

Oh, and don't get me started on how much time (real) and finances in game have been spent resarching ME on POS over the years, etc for it all to mean pretty much squat now.

This is the worst move I've seen in EVE. Period. While this toon is not a Beta player, the person behind him is. And I'm also the biggest advocator of adapt and survive. This, however, is not a survival issue. It's a "I can't be bothered with it" issue. And that means I stop paying for it.

Hey ho ... next few weeks will be key. but already it's too unmanagable and annoying on a daily level.
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#151 - 2014-10-29 14:36:29 UTC
Mr Arrow,

I have a rather unique and interesting suggestion that is quite creative and provides significant benefits (Huge ISK Sink, New Player Retention, Old Player Retention, Increased real-world income for CCP) which maintains eves complexity whilst removing some complications in relation to Industry, blueprints and manufacturing and would love to share this with you (it is quite detailed and given freely by me as a fan).
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#152 - 2014-10-29 16:08:46 UTC
True Sight wrote:
Mr Arrow,

I have a rather unique and interesting suggestion that is quite creative and provides significant benefits (Huge ISK Sink, New Player Retention, Old Player Retention, Increased real-world income for CCP) which maintains eves complexity whilst removing some complications in relation to Industry, blueprints and manufacturing and would love to share this with you (it is quite detailed and given freely by me as a fan).



ccp didn't take any suggestion regarding the invention changes. they lied thru their friggin heads about taking feedback from the community..so now they're forcing the changes come next Tuesday.

thanks a lot ccp for you provide more reason to stop paying to play this mess.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#153 - 2014-10-29 16:41:57 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
True Sight wrote:
Mr Arrow,

I have a rather unique and interesting suggestion that is quite creative and provides significant benefits (Huge ISK Sink, New Player Retention, Old Player Retention, Increased real-world income for CCP) which maintains eves complexity whilst removing some complications in relation to Industry, blueprints and manufacturing and would love to share this with you (it is quite detailed and given freely by me as a fan).



ccp didn't take any suggestion regarding the invention changes. they lied thru their friggin heads about taking feedback from the community..so now they're forcing the changes come next Tuesday.

thanks a lot ccp for you provide more reason to stop paying to play this mess.


The irony here is most of the changes in industry and invention are things I indeed wanted, which my feedback made clear.

Apparently CCP prefers my feedback to yours. P
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2014-10-30 01:35:12 UTC
CCP Arrow wrote:
Hey everyone.

Team Game of Drones is doing extensive investigation and discovery work for Science & Industry in EVE (referred to as S&I) as a part of a larger effort of getting insight into the current player preferences and user behavior related to S&I.

Please take the survey and help us improve the game - Your opinion matters!

http://industry.questionpro.com

Fly safe,
@CCP_Arrow


Quote:
This Survey has been deactivated by the owner.


Thread is now obsolete and needs to be locked.



DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Decian Cor
Stronghelm Corporation
Solyaris Chtonium
#155 - 2014-10-31 01:09:38 UTC
It would be extremely nice to see one of these for other issues and facets of the game (Sov, Exploration, WHs, etc).

I feel like it would derive more useful answers and opinions from the community than the drivel you usually see posted by people on here.

[u]Unfiltered for the masses.[/u]

http://imgur.com/mzSl1Ie
Serene Repose
#156 - 2014-10-31 03:07:39 UTC
People really don't like pressing buttons. It's laborious, don't yah know?

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
fishsniffer dinglberry
#157 - 2014-11-04 02:15:32 UTC
Liner Xiandra wrote:
Please rip out all the tabular presented data, my out of game calculators already are enough to cope with. (my out of game tools are also giving me an advantage over the average player, so please don't dumb it down enough to make me lose my edge Bear)

I think S&I could be well served if it was represented as industrial process diagrams, (work your ISIS magic please) which you could configure to do:
- N runs of Product
- run for N amount of time
- run continuously;

and use your pos modules/station hangers as hoppers that you could top off if needed. (drag & drop material to a hopper and it will 'install the job') Eliminating manual selection of production lines in the process.

And try to sort out the needed corporate roles in the process. Alliance level access, renting out production facilities, proper access management.
I'd like to cooperate my builds with corp members, but setting up restricted access between various corp members is a major headache if not impossible; and it stops me from recruiting new players.


Yes I agree with this guy I made a pos in high sec with the idea of renting out my assembly arrays and discovered the mechanic doesn't allow that without opening a massive security issue by giving them factory manager. Just seems ludicrous its either give them the master key in blueprint running or deny all access.