These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Paul Tsukaya
Doomheim
#201 - 2014-04-29 16:39:37 UTC
Why are people claiming this will hurt small alliances the most, when small alliances use capitals sparingly while large alliances hot drop everything in sight?

I swear every single possible capital nerf that CCP could propose will get knocked for hurting "the little guy with his carrier alt."
viper78 Anthar
DadTZ
#202 - 2014-04-29 16:41:58 UTC  |  Edited by: viper78 Anthar
By reducing the volume of isotopes you will make isotope ice compression less useful as well. I don't think all the math has been done for a change like this. Are you going to reduce the volume of compressed isotope ice as well?
Tam Althor
Commonwealth Industries
#203 - 2014-04-29 16:45:10 UTC
Paul Tsukaya wrote:
Why are people claiming this will hurt small alliances the most, when small alliances use capitals sparingly while large alliances hot drop everything in sight?

I swear every single possible capital nerf that CCP could propose will get knocked for hurting "the little guy with his carrier alt."



It's going to hurt the smaller groups more because they rely on a very small number of members to move things from 0.0 to highsec and back. They don't have a warchest of isotopes stored for use and the isk to refill the warchest whenever needed.
Pah Cova
Made in Portugal S.A.
#204 - 2014-04-29 16:45:12 UTC
Have you CCP guys going nuts?
Did you recently came to Portugal get any kind of graduation like our politics?
Are you tell small corps to go away play another game?

50% ?

And what are we get in exchange to compensate that 50% extra cost?
From 3 years ago until now, CCP are making everything to take money out our pocket in every expansion you release, and still on going to take more.

What are we get in exchange to compensate that?
Reducing the ice weight does not compensate our wallets, can you think in something better?
What about increase the anomalies number and the bounty´s in 50%?
What about ice anomalies for every system in null sec?

For me this particular decision worth a red card, just because it will affect in much, as allways smaller corps.
Larodil
State War Academy
Caldari State
#205 - 2014-04-29 16:48:53 UTC
So let's get a discussion from CCP on why they feel this is a necessary change.

What possible benefit does a Nulsec corp/alliance get with this change?
What possible benefit does a Highsec corp/alliance get with this change?

This is either a change that has been very much not thought out in advance, or one that is targeted at a specific group of people to make things more difficult for them.

Changes to the game should (in theory) have some benefit other than just "lets press this button that sucks the air out of the tank and see what it does to the mice inside."

I'd like to see what in the world the "benefit" is to the players that are actually paying CCP for this game.
Crashtec
Outback Steakhouse of Pancakes
Deepwater Hooligans
#206 - 2014-04-29 16:49:57 UTC
Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.

this is stupid... since only 1 type of isotope in 0.0 is availaible this change is going to **** everyone ...
Dave Stark
#207 - 2014-04-29 16:51:13 UTC
i don't know if any one has stated the obvious but i'm going to state it;

how does this not massively arse **** the "little guy"?
big entities benefit from being able to throw cash around and not bat an eyelid, the little guy doesn't.
Tam Althor
Commonwealth Industries
#208 - 2014-04-29 16:51:13 UTC
Pah Cova wrote:
Have you CCP guys going nuts?


What are we get in exchange to compensate that?
Reducing the ice weight does not compensate our wallets, can you think in something better?
What about increase the anomalies number and the bounty´s in 50%?
What about ice anomalies for every system in null sec?

For me this particular decision worth a red card, just because it will affect in much, as allways smaller corps.


Hell, it would help to cut the ice respawn timer by 50% to 2 hours or even better to 1 hour
JEFFRAIDER
THIGH GUYS
#209 - 2014-04-29 16:54:17 UTC
Honest question, how long have you been thinking of this before posting this devblog? I'm guessing it's a "this week" thing, right?
Jack Kennedy
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#210 - 2014-04-29 16:54:29 UTC
Paul Tsukaya wrote:
Why are people claiming this will hurt small alliances the most, when small alliances use capitals sparingly while large alliances hot drop everything in sight?

I swear every single possible capital nerf that CCP could propose will get knocked for hurting "the little guy with his carrier alt."



you clearly have no idea what your talking about, enough said on that one.
Paul Tsukaya
Doomheim
#211 - 2014-04-29 16:57:01 UTC
Tam Althor wrote:
Paul Tsukaya wrote:
Why are people claiming this will hurt small alliances the most, when small alliances use capitals sparingly while large alliances hot drop everything in sight?

I swear every single possible capital nerf that CCP could propose will get knocked for hurting "the little guy with his carrier alt."



It's going to hurt the smaller groups more because they rely on a very small number of members to move things from 0.0 to highsec and back. They don't have a warchest of isotopes stored for use and the isk to refill the warchest whenever needed.

Are you honestly suggesting that this will paralyze small alliance jf services?

That's baloney. All they will have to do is raise their prices to compensate, the same as large alliance jf services.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#212 - 2014-04-29 16:57:28 UTC
The primary point of this change isn't to nerf power projection; it's to increase usage of topes following a massive draw down of POS in highsec. The costs just aren't enough to really care much about; I'm not sure why you're all complaining. This is coming from an individual who refuses to allow his alliance to pay for his topes, too -- it's just not enough money to be worth the roles hassle.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Paul Tsukaya
Doomheim
#213 - 2014-04-29 16:58:21 UTC
Jack Kennedy wrote:
Paul Tsukaya wrote:
Why are people claiming this will hurt small alliances the most, when small alliances use capitals sparingly while large alliances hot drop everything in sight?

I swear every single possible capital nerf that CCP could propose will get knocked for hurting "the little guy with his carrier alt."



you clearly have no idea what your talking about, enough said on that one.

This change hurts those who use capitals more, more than those who use capitals less.

I may not be super 1337 like you, but I can at least put 2 and 2 together.
Migui X'hyrrn
No More Dramas Only Llamas
#214 - 2014-04-29 16:59:17 UTC
Paul Tsukaya wrote:
Why are people claiming this will hurt small alliances the most, when small alliances use capitals sparingly while large alliances hot drop everything in sight?

I swear every single possible capital nerf that CCP could propose will get knocked for hurting "the little guy with his carrier alt."


If you own capitals and/or supercapitals, the fuel should not be an issue for you.

But if you are in scrub-tier income or you are new to the game, you rely on others for your logistics and shipments, in 0.0 specially. This nerf means that JF owners will charge more, therefore market gets more expensive because of shipping costs, and hurting the poor guy.

If you have a shitload of capitals you don't care a lot if you have to pay X or 2X.

Migui is running for CSM10!
Winifred Running Goat
Minmatar Republic
#215 - 2014-04-29 17:00:19 UTC
eve is hard, adapt or die Lol

[b] no, i don't want more server load.

[u]WARNING: If you don’t post alot you will become “Inactive fa**ot” instead of “Bitter vet”[/u][/b]
Amarrain miner
Doomheim
#216 - 2014-04-29 17:02:52 UTC
Apollo Purvon wrote:
You expect highsec ice consumption to drop on the theory that people will downsize their towers, ignoring the idea that more people will drop towers because you're also removing standings requirements and giving bonuses to tower manufacturing. In order to offset this drop in Highsec consumption, you're increasing nullsec logistics costs. This is a bad fix based on a non-existent problem.



CCP, you just got swerved.
JEFFRAIDER
THIGH GUYS
#217 - 2014-04-29 17:05:43 UTC
So we can fit 3x as many isotopes in a single JF load now u say?

Twisted
Jamir Von Lietuva
Nameless Minions
GaNg BaNg TeAm
#218 - 2014-04-29 17:06:23 UTC
wow CCP yet another nerf to pirat with nerf on AFK camp cloak cyno hotdrop
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#219 - 2014-04-29 17:08:10 UTC
JEFFRAIDER wrote:
So we can fit 3x as many isotopes in a single JF load now u say?

Twisted

Naw dude -- 150% of normal

but whoops you will also consume 150% as many topes as normal

I guess it works out nicely if you are importing topes to build fuel blocks

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#220 - 2014-04-29 17:08:12 UTC
JEFFRAIDER wrote:
So we can fit 3x as many isotopes in a single JF load now u say?

Twisted

yea, cose this will nerf the power projection...Roll