These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
penifSMASH
ElitistOps
Snuffed Out
#21 - 2014-04-29 13:41:50 UTC
Will you be increasing the size of fleet hangars, since that's where most fuel is kept?

What about increasing the cargo size of black ops? Many people use cargo-expanded and rigged Black Ops to bridge around covert fleets and most of the fuel for that is kept in the cargo.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#22 - 2014-04-29 13:42:54 UTC
penifSMASH wrote:
Can you double the base amount of liquid ozone consumption for lighting a cyno


Pretty please.
ForceM
POS Builder Inc.
#23 - 2014-04-29 13:43:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone!


We will also be increasing the fuel bays on all jump capable ships (and the fuel storage on starbase jump bridge arrays) by 50% (60% for Black Ops Battleships) so that they do not need to refuel much more often.[/b]


WTF!!!

You got no idea how annoyingly small the fuel bay of a black ops is and your nerfing it with a total of 20% now.
This is ****** up tbh.
That measly 10% over the rest is just shy an ounce of an insult.

Your tweet about starting a controversy is correct .... no beer or you.

ForceM

penifSMASH
ElitistOps
Snuffed Out
#24 - 2014-04-29 13:43:45 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Here's a crazy thought... Remove all the jump fuel from Hisec. If all the jump fuel had to be sourced from 0.0 and lowsec, and the different racial variants were only found in specific regions... the space you control would directly determine which racial jump drives you could fuel and therefore what capital ships you could field.

That would undoubtedly cause utter chaos and a massive uproar so you might have to introduce some sort of "generic" jump fuel that can be found everywhere, but has a lower efficiency e.g. you need more of it to make the same jump.


Here's a crazy thought... stop making bad suggestions?
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
#25 - 2014-04-29 13:44:10 UTC
RIP affordable T2 heh

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions
#26 - 2014-04-29 13:44:26 UTC
let me update your list a bit
CCP Fozzie wrote:


  • 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.



  • screw over everyone producing in lowsec, as prices are even less competative to highsec than before due to the raising transport cost of resources to low, and produced goods to highsec, as well as the higher costs of transporting fuel etc.


CCP Fozzie wrote:


  • 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.

Translation: The huge rich alliances get a minor nerf to their fleets that they probably care less about, while lesser rich entities, (small capital heavy corps, jumpfreighter services, roaming blackops gangs) get the shortstick...

3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#27 - 2014-04-29 13:45:28 UTC
Cool, but not sure cost changes will do much

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Sphit Ker
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2014-04-29 13:45:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Sphit Ker
oh dear. Now we need to have fuel bay expander rigs, or one of those advanced skills to further reduce isotope usage.

Until then, o7 to your bridge Widow and Sin. Cry

It knows what you think.

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#29 - 2014-04-29 13:46:26 UTC
Cost for bridges should go up by more like 500%
Resgo
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#30 - 2014-04-29 13:47:28 UTC
Rather than increasing the size of fuel bays, why not cut the volume of the isotyopes by a third. Then it would carry through all of your systems using the isotopes at fuel. It wouldn't have an impact on POSes as POSes consume fuel blocks that would stay the same size.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2014-04-29 13:49:00 UTC
Resgo wrote:
Rather than increasing the size of fuel bays, why not cut the volume of the isotyopes by a third. Then it would carry through all of your systems using the isotopes at fuel. It wouldn't have an impact on POSes as POSes consume fuel blocks that would stay the same size.

This is a great solution: I would use this instead.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#32 - 2014-04-29 13:49:01 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.


  • Good thing there isn't something like a large coalition that controls all non-NPC nullsec from which nitrogen and oxygen isotopes are mined.
    Loretta Calif
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #33 - 2014-04-29 13:49:33 UTC
    Stop ******* with so many portions of the game at once. Have you learned NOTHING from your past horrible failures at 'balance' passes? Adjust a few things and see what shakes out. You're nerfing the **** out of jump drive ships based on the slight possibility that there might maybe possibly be an issue. Have you ever considered waiting to see if that situation arises? Then adjusting accordingly? Rather than going balls deep straight out of the gate?

    Stop treating us like 2 bit whores. We need a little foreplay before you jam the nerf bat up there.
    Querns
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #34 - 2014-04-29 13:50:01 UTC
    Resgo wrote:
    Rather than increasing the size of fuel bays, why not cut the volume of the isotyopes by a third. Then it would carry through all of your systems using the isotopes at fuel. It wouldn't have an impact on POSes as POSes consume fuel blocks that would stay the same size.

    This is a pretty good solution for keeping blackops battleships from being adversely affected by the change.

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

    Gilbaron
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #35 - 2014-04-29 13:50:28 UTC
    this is okay for dreads, carriers, supers, titans

    it sucks for jump freighters. don't do this while you are in the process of making null and low industry more viable
    Querns
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #36 - 2014-04-29 13:50:48 UTC
    Irregessa wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.


  • Good thing there isn't something like a large coalition that controls all non-NPC nullsec from which nitrogen and oxygen isotopes are mined.

    Oxygen Isotopes can also come from the Drone Regions. It's a big part of the reason why oxytopes are in the crapper right now compared to nitropes.

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

    Beaver Retriever
    Reality Sequence
    #37 - 2014-04-29 13:50:55 UTC
    So this will be a minor annoyance for the logistics departments of large alliances and coalitions such as the CFC and PL, while it will be both a massive pain in the ass and a not insignificant cost increase in running caps for smaller alliances.

    Yeah, there weren't few enough people risking capitals as it was. Nice change. Roll
    Vtra
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #38 - 2014-04-29 13:51:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Vtra
    They changed it so never mind.
    Altrue
    Exploration Frontier inc
    Tactical-Retreat
    #39 - 2014-04-29 13:51:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
    What?!

    Do you have any idea of how much small (or newbies :D) alliances rely on jump freighting services when moving their stuff?

    To take a typical situation in Brave, when moving our staging, a fresh newbie with 2/3 cruisers and a bunch of T1 frigates will die horribly to gate camps if trying to move his stuff himself, so he will use a jump freighting service. Its already barely affortable for some individuals, do you imagine how this increase in cost would affect them?

    Logistics are already an horrible pain because the contract system is broken, because nullsec requires stupidly high amounts of human effort due to poor sov design, and now to add insult to injury, you try to make people that are new enough to the game that then can't move their stuff themselves... pay more to have their stuff moved? :(

    Because lets face it, caps and supercaps pilots won't be much affected by that change. When you can afford a supercap, you can afford any jump cost. So the only people this change hits is less wealthy individuals just trying to have fun in an environnement that is against any fun (sov null). Did I mention that bridging is absurdly cheap compared to jumping? Yep, you heard it right, titans pilots are almost unaffected by this change, too.

    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Help encourage cost competitiveness for local resource gathering in nullsec.

  • Cost competitiveness for local ressource gathering in nullsec? How do in fuel my Rhea and Widow in Catch? Its amarr space, isotopes are useless for my ships out there, how can null-sec caldari ice belts be any "local" for me? Do you expect me to train all the way to Amarr Battleship V, Amarr Freighter IV, and buy an Amarr Jump freighter and Amarr Black OPS??

    Sorry but this is one of the worst changes I've seen in this upcoming release and I hope you reconsider it.



    Suggested Alternative:
    If you want to preserve revenues for the ice miner, just reduce the spawn rate of ice belts. It will effectively reduce offer in line with demand, instead of artificially increasing demand to match the same offer. Ice miners in high-sec don't ice mine all day anyway, because belts in their systems are usually empty in two hours max. So an ice miner cannot practice this activity 24/7 and is already prepared with alternatives when belts are unavailable. Reducing belt spawn rates wouldn't fundamentally change his gameplay.

    Signature Tanking Best Tanking

    [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

    Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

    iskflakes
    #40 - 2014-04-29 13:52:03 UTC
    Resgo wrote:
    Rather than increasing the size of fuel bays, why not cut the volume of the isotyopes by a third. Then it would carry through all of your systems using the isotopes at fuel. It wouldn't have an impact on POSes as POSes consume fuel blocks that would stay the same size.


    This is a good solution.

    +50% usage
    -1/3rd volume

    -