These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Edwin McAlister
Empire Hooligans
#561 - 2014-05-13 07:00:21 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
:

aThe goals of this change are:
[list]
  • 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.


    • As an industrialist, and discussion with ffriends, i feel i must disagree with this...

    The proposed changes with industry, several of us that had small towers, will be upgradeing those towers to mediums (or larges)..

    the need to defend our assets being the primary reason, the cost of the increased fuel requirement will just be passed on to the buyer of the end product / goods.
    Octoven
    Stellar Production
    #562 - 2014-05-13 07:54:16 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.


    Given the massive feedback against this idea, I would suggest postponing the idea completely until the fall. Give the markets time to settle down from all the industry changes. I mean the fact that you are opening POSes up in 0.8-1.0 as well as without standings will already dramatically affect the isotope market. It may in fact be the increase in usage you were looking for. If you try to release this at the same time as industry changes I can only suspect it to be detrimental to everyone and the game as a whole.
    Anthar Thebess
    #563 - 2014-05-13 07:57:32 UTC
    Moterships and titan should burn more fuel than Carrier or dread.

    Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

    Show your support to The Cause!
    Mournful Conciousness
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #564 - 2014-05-13 08:26:28 UTC
    Octoven wrote:
    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.


    Given the massive feedback against this idea, I would suggest postponing the idea completely until the fall. Give the markets time to settle down from all the industry changes. I mean the fact that you are opening POSes up in 0.8-1.0 as well as without standings will already dramatically affect the isotope market. It may in fact be the increase in usage you were looking for. If you try to release this at the same time as industry changes I can only suspect it to be detrimental to everyone and the game as a whole.


    Or... We could just embrace the changes, meeting the challenges head on. Leave the comfort of familiarity for the thrill of discovery...

    Or are we all wearing slippers in our spaceships now?

    Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
    Shivanthar
    #565 - 2014-05-13 11:07:52 UTC
    Tau Cabalander wrote:
    Shivanthar wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    :Edit:
    ...
    We will not change the isotope consumption in Kronos, and we will continue to discuss ...
    :Edit:


    Yay! Marauders that can jump finally! There is the ship, there is the cargo space more than enough. You guys really giving more and more tools for Marauders and encouraging them to go low-null every other thay Shocked
    Btw, why only Kronos?

    (Blink)

    /doublefacepalm


    LMAO Lol

    _Half _the lies they tell about me **aren't **true.
    Luxotor
    This Cyno Will Eventually Make Sense
    #566 - 2014-05-13 14:51:46 UTC
    Elequent-Lady Dolorous wrote:
    Can we have fuel conservation rigs please?


    I'd rather have a slot 9 navigation implant that reduces jump fuel consumption by 1/3/5/8%.

    THE NIGHT IS DARK AND FULL OF TERRORS!
    Ama Zing
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #567 - 2014-05-13 16:57:31 UTC
    Hey Guys,

    I am still missing the point, why CCP interacts with the market - CCP should be neutral, as far as it can be.

    There is no need to nerf jump drives .....

    There is no need to push the industrialst into ice mining ....

    and the worst thing is that example you gave us, with a jump freighter, paying +25 mio for that route ....

    Do you think, JF pilots earn to much cash with their services?

    I really don't get it.
    Dirk MacGirk
    Specter Syndicate
    #568 - 2014-05-13 18:02:44 UTC
    Ama Zing wrote:
    Hey Guys,

    I am still missing the point, why CCP interacts with the market - CCP should be neutral, as far as it can be.

    There is no need to nerf jump drives .....

    There is no need to push the industrialst into ice mining ....

    and the worst thing is that example you gave us, with a jump freighter, paying +25 mio for that route ....

    Do you think, JF pilots earn to much cash with their services?

    I really don't get it.


    Charge more. People who need your JF service will still need it.

    CCP is forced to interact with the market (sometimes) because they make changes elsewhere that affect the market. Thus they are not neutral unless they stop making changes altogether. In this case though, they are jumping the gun a little. At least based on their given reason behind the change. I suppose they could have just said: we are increasing the consumption by 50% because we want to. End of story. It's their game they can make changes. But since they gave a reason, many of the counters have been based on that reason.
    Anthar Thebess
    #569 - 2014-05-13 18:37:13 UTC
    What we need are supercapital ships burning 3-4 times more than a carrier.

    Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

    Show your support to The Cause!
    Arkon Olacar
    black.listed
    #570 - 2014-05-13 22:46:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkon Olacar
    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.

    Push this change back to the release after Crius. Whats the point in moving to a six week rolling set of releases if you are still going to try and cram too much crap into one release? Wait and see what affect the industry changes actually have on the market. Most of the industry guys I've spoken to will be increasing their fuel consumption as a result of the changes, not decreasing it. If the prices start to sink significantly, then follow through with this change. If they don't (and I doubt they will), then chalk this one up to a bad decision that you nearly inflicted on the playerbase.
    Rann Skir
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #571 - 2014-05-13 23:05:00 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Querns wrote:
    I just thought of another side effect of changing isotope volumes -- Titans currently use their racial isotopes as fuel for their Doomsday weapons. Will doomsday weapon fuel consumption also see an increase in their tope usage commensurate with the volume reduction being planned?

    During the battle of B-R, tope consumption due to doomsdays became a significant factor after several hours, and many titans had to jump out to refuel. Not increasing the usage will allow them to have a longer operational period, should such a slugfest ever occur again.

    We will be giving doomsday isotope consumption some thought and bringing it up with the CSM, thanks.


    I think it's a decent balancing factor that they can't just endlessly spam doomsdays over the span of a large fights. Supers have 'ammo' too in the form of destructible fighters/fighter bombers, and subcaps consume ammo and drones in large quantities as well.
    Dirk MacGirk
    Specter Syndicate
    #572 - 2014-05-13 23:25:24 UTC
    Rann Skir wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Querns wrote:
    I just thought of another side effect of changing isotope volumes -- Titans currently use their racial isotopes as fuel for their Doomsday weapons. Will doomsday weapon fuel consumption also see an increase in their tope usage commensurate with the volume reduction being planned?

    During the battle of B-R, tope consumption due to doomsdays became a significant factor after several hours, and many titans had to jump out to refuel. Not increasing the usage will allow them to have a longer operational period, should such a slugfest ever occur again.

    We will be giving doomsday isotope consumption some thought and bringing it up with the CSM, thanks.


    I think it's a decent balancing factor that they can't just endlessly spam doomsdays over the span of a large fights. Supers have 'ammo' too in the form of destructible fighters/fighter bombers, and subcaps consume ammo and drones in large quantities as well.


    Wait - are people crying that more supers would have gotten the big blast? I thought you peeps cheer everytime a titan dies. More fuel = more dead supers. If anything, reduce their consumption
    HuGo87
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #573 - 2014-05-14 05:49:31 UTC
    Dirk MacGirk wrote:
    [quote=Ama Zing]Hey Guys,

    Charge more. People who need your JF service will still need it.



    I freight for myself. I don't want to waste MORE ISK just moving ships. I spend ISK on ships to PvP, not to haul them.
    Mouchette
    Chevaliers de la Croix Du Sud
    #574 - 2014-05-16 16:43:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mouchette
    50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals = more expensive for players = more money for ...
    Find the error ?
    Sgt Ocker
    What Corp is it
    #575 - 2014-05-16 22:16:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
    Luxotor wrote:
    Elequent-Lady Dolorous wrote:
    Can we have fuel conservation rigs please?


    I'd rather have a slot 9 navigation implant that reduces jump fuel consumption by 1/3/5/8%.

    Why?

    Having to spend even more isk to use some of the most expensive ships in game - For what to get back 8% of a 50% increase? I've already trained Jump Fuel Conservation 5. Why should I pay more because Devs cut ice miners income (maybe).

    Conversation between, drunk or just bored Devs after a staff party -
    Dev 1 says; I have an idea that will keep management thinking we are improving the game;

    We'll completely change the way industry gets carried out - and charge Capital ship pilots for it.

    Dev 2 says; I have a plan for advertising;

    Next run of ads for Eve -
    Latest innovations for our popular sandbox game.
    Our Devs will actively seek out and find any mechanic in game that is not broken, tamper with it and add what they "think" players will see as better functionality.
    Then so no-one is left out of Devs unnecessary over complication and increased cost of things. We will add additional costs to a totally unrelated section of players (capital pilots), to subsidize a group of players (ice miners) who had their income cut by Devs "balancing" of a mechanic (industry).

    We pride ourselves on over complicated menus, role and title management interfaces, straight out of your worst nightmare.

    A 3rd Dev joins them;
    How about we introduce ToolTips that take away the previous functionality of tooltips and make them, well , basically horrible and useless.

    My opinions are mine.

      If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

    It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
    Nys Cron
    EVE University
    Ivy League
    #576 - 2014-05-17 18:26:06 UTC
    As someone who doesn't have all their fuel paid for by Corp/Alliance I will be even more hesitant to jump capitals around and thus provide less opportunity for interesting content. Is this the intention behind the change?
    PotatoOverdose
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #577 - 2014-05-17 22:55:19 UTC
    Why does it cost as much to jump a Thanatos, Nyx, and Erebus the same distance? That's where you should look into increasing "demand" for topes.
    Asuka Solo
    I N E X T R E M I S
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #578 - 2014-05-19 13:11:32 UTC
    BadAssMcKill wrote:
    Jesus no

    Stop it


    This.

    Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
    Gaijin Lanis
    Gallente Federation
    #579 - 2014-05-19 20:42:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Gaijin Lanis
    Just hopping in to let everyone at CCP know the change worked! Isk/hr of ice mining has been increasing steadily since this change was applied! As, per fozzie's predictions, the increased usage has increased demand of the various isotopes and maintained the viability of ice mining!

    Wait, hold on, the change hasn't been applied yet.

    Meaning just talking about doing this has already caused isotope prices to skyrocket. Meaning once the change actually hits, prices will simply balloon further. Like others have mentioned in this thread, the supply of ice is essentially fixed. So steadily increasing demand of a commodity with a fixed supply means it will quickly price itself out of the range of everyone other than the power blocs.

    The power blocs, of course, will be unaffected because they have no choice but to maintain their levels of projection or lose their assets.

    The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.
    Asuka Solo
    I N E X T R E M I S
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #580 - 2014-05-20 06:38:26 UTC
    Gaijin Lanis wrote:
    Just hopping in to let everyone at CCP know the change worked! Isk/hr of ice mining has been increasing steadily since this change was applied! As, per fozzie's predictions, the increased usage has increased demand of the various isotopes and maintained the viability of ice mining!

    Wait, hold on, the change hasn't been applied yet.

    Meaning just talking about doing this has already caused isotope prices to skyrocket. Meaning once the change actually hits, prices will simply balloon further. Like others have mentioned in this thread, the supply of ice is essentially fixed. So steadily increasing demand of a commodity with a fixed supply means it will quickly price itself out of the range of everyone other than the power blocs.

    The power blocs, of course, will be unaffected because they have no choice but to maintain their levels of projection or lose their assets.


    Given the change has not yet been applied, what your seeing now is market speculation leading up to it.

    Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!