These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

What was the reason for the Fuel Block change?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Velicitia
XS Tech
#21 - 2012-03-03 18:05:08 UTC
Toshiro GreyHawk wrote:


1) Ending all meaning to blood lines.
2) Getting rid of Agent Quality
3) Making Agents give out only one type of mission
4) Eliminating Learning Skills
5) Simplifying module names

.


1. STILL make Caldari Achura when I want a new science alt tho... old habits die hard
2. ambivalent here (avoid missions like the plague)
3. see 2. I thought that they just leveled out the missions a bit (i.e. all the ones that were >70% shooting became "security")
4. This wasn't exactly a bad thing (well, except for those of us who spent the weeks/months getting everything to 5/5) ... i mean, seriously, it was like "train learning skills for a week, then you can do whatever you want".
5. WTF CCP, GIVE US OUR YT-8'S BACK!!!Evil

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Tekota
The Freighter Factory
#22 - 2012-03-03 18:37:35 UTC
In many of the examples you post the extra complexity didn't actually bring anything to the game beyond complexity. Module names are still there, just now they're a little more consistent; having to read the description of a new missile type just to find out which one does X type of damge was complexity for no reason other than complexity's sake. Personally I can now begin to recognise meta 4 modules by name rather than having to go to the attributes tab every single time.

Would streamlining the invention interface to make it even a little less of a clickfest be considered as "dumbing down"? I see many of these things as not a complexity issue but rather bringing a feature back into a coherent and intuitive pattern having drifted in differing directions over the years of feature creep implemented by differing teams.

And pertinent to the thread, the POS fuel block change isn't reducing complexity, in fact by adding a seperate stage between raw materials and fuel it could be argued that complexity has been added - just that now we get to choose whether we want that complexity or not. Those that chose complexity even get paid for it by selling to those of us who don't want to worry about that extra step.
Zathryon
Amarr General Drilling and Construction
#23 - 2012-03-03 21:46:36 UTC
while i can partly concede that simplifying things does, to an extent "dumb things down" I dont concede that a loss of richness will also, necessarily, follow.

I dont think POS fueling lost any of its richness. CCP didnt say, "actually...POSs dont run on all this stuff like you thought they did. actually they just run on gasoline, and thats all you need to fuel them with"

Instead they said, "POSs require alot of things to keep them running, except now some genius (probably on Amarr Prime) thought up the idea of consolidating those things into one package"

a POS still requires what it did before.
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
#24 - 2012-03-04 19:49:39 UTC
mxzf wrote:

Also, IIRC, I thought someone calculated that it's actually cheaper to run POSes in general now (with the exception of L POSes running very low CPU/Grid loads), especially with small/med towers.


Sort of. The catch is that it made running of stripped down towers more expensive. If one ran fully loaded ones they got a bonus out of this, but if you ran minimilistic towers then prices went up.

Personally, I kinda miss the flexibility of the old system to fuel by actual needs, and hope they eventually introduce something again that either allows a finer grained approach or introduce a new range of anchor-able objects for those other use cases.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#25 - 2012-03-04 20:15:29 UTC
Nekopyat wrote:
mxzf wrote:

Also, IIRC, I thought someone calculated that it's actually cheaper to run POSes in general now (with the exception of L POSes running very low CPU/Grid loads), especially with small/med towers.


Sort of. The catch is that it made running of stripped down towers more expensive. If one ran fully loaded ones they got a bonus out of this, but if you ran minimilistic towers then prices went up.

Personally, I kinda miss the flexibility of the old system to fuel by actual needs, and hope they eventually introduce something again that either allows a finer grained approach or introduce a new range of anchor-able objects for those other use cases.


Nope. Small towers are cheaper full stop. (Taking into account the changes in prices for the components)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Previous page12