These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#41 - 2014-04-29 13:52:24 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 suggestion.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Kenrailae
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#42 - 2014-04-29 13:52:44 UTC
0.o......

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Zetaomega333
High Flyers
#43 - 2014-04-29 13:53:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Zetaomega333
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone!

In the upcoming Summer release we are making a lot of changes that we expect will impact player behavior surrounding manufacturing, mining and starbase use. We see an opportunity here to make some adjustments to the way that Jump Drives consume their isotope fuel that will hit a few birds with one stone.

The goals of this change are:
  • 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.
  • 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.

The plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals.

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.


For reference, this will increase the cost of running a max skilled Rhea from Jita to RIT-A7 (jump drive transit the whole way) from ~50m isk to ~75m isk.


Can we get say nullsec ice belts doubled in size then because atm a decent sized mining fleet will clear it in 45 minutes. Or can we get the JF in line with every other jump capable ship instead of being double the fuel cost as it currently is.
Angelus X
ElitistOps
Snuffed Out
#44 - 2014-04-29 13:53:28 UTC
This is a great change, thanks raivi ))) <3 Big smile
MrWalter White
Breaking Bad Corp
#45 - 2014-04-29 13:53:55 UTC
pls increase the fuel bay size and the CHA size to compensate for this - so we can make the same amount of jumps
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#46 - 2014-04-29 13:53:55 UTC
Hehehehe, space draaamaaa!

Invalid signature format

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#47 - 2014-04-29 13:53:58 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.


At first glance this appears to be an excellent idea.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#48 - 2014-04-29 13:54:02 UTC
To explain further - atm the cost to bridge around a 100man bc fleet is about the same as the ammo carried by one of those bcs. Its hilariously cheap. Its cheaper to bridge a jf than to jump it.

Make bridges have a minimum mass/ship (for cost calculations, not the bridging), and massively amp up the cost.
gr ant
Perkone
Caldari State
#49 - 2014-04-29 13:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: gr ant
This game sure seems like its going to be a lot of fun, can't wait for you guys to iron out all the kinks and get it ready for full release Lol
Capqu
Half Empty
#50 - 2014-04-29 13:54:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
what about the (rather huge) nerf to blops that use their cargo for extra fuel? same with dreads? same with carriers and fleet hangars?

could you instead of changing fuel bay size consider reducing fuel size by 33%


edit: nvm literally everyone else already said the same thing
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#51 - 2014-04-29 13:54:49 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


At first glance this appears to be an excellent idea.


Cutting isotope volume allows people to fit more fuel into non-fuel bays, which you may or may not want to do.
Migui X'hyrrn
No More Dramas Only Llamas
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
#52 - 2014-04-29 13:55:04 UTC
"Duplicate the cost and see what happens"

Lol, that is not a well thought plan, or at least, it doesn't seem to be. You want to make the fuel more competitive? Then buff a lot the profitability of mining in lowsec or 0.0.

This change will impact more on the small guy that can't afford his own capitals or supers and has to rely in the local market in low/0.0. With the fuel increased in price, you just kill the competitiveness. The little guy that is pissed because of the markup on contracts in 0.0, the newbro, basically. Alliances are still going to be able to afford capital operations, bridges, etc.

If you want to nerf power projection and want to see supers in field more often because battles like B-R are good for your business then start rebalancing those hulls to make them more useful and survivable without having a supercapital blob behind if **** hits the fan.
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#53 - 2014-04-29 13:55:49 UTC
Help I'm being repressed
David Magnus
#54 - 2014-04-29 13:55:52 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!

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/fight-us-maybe

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion

Casey AtThe Bat
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2014-04-29 13:55:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Casey AtThe Bat
Any reason why certain regions of space will continue to have to import ice/topes from halfway across the galaxy whereas drones can get all flavors within a few jumps?

Nerf Drone space
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2014-04-29 13:56:17 UTC
I wish these announcements wouldnt be made when my ass is stuck at work.

Can things that are massively going to affect the market be issued at random times as opposed to the same time most of the time (i.e. EU working hours).

I realise I'm asking for "work" out of hours for you folks, but to be fair - it is a forum post Smile
Capqu
Half Empty
#57 - 2014-04-29 13:56:29 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


At first glance this appears to be an excellent idea.


Cutting isotope volume allows people to fit more fuel into non-fuel bays, which you may or may not want to do.



more fuel but same range as current

aka exactly what ccp want
Speedkermit Damo
Invicta.
Pandemic Horde
#58 - 2014-04-29 13:56:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone!

In the upcoming Summer release we are making a lot of changes that we expect will impact player behavior surrounding manufacturing, mining and starbase use. We see an opportunity here to make some adjustments to the way that Jump Drives consume their isotope fuel that will hit a few birds with one stone.

The goals of this change are:
  • 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.
  • 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.

The plan for this release is to start with a 50% increase in the fuel cost of all jump drives and jump portals, and adjust further if necessary once we see the results. This change applies both the the base consumption of ship based jump drives, as well as the isotope consumption per kg of mass on all jump bridges and portals.

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.


For reference, this will increase the cost of running a max skilled Rhea from Jita to RIT-A7 (jump drive transit the whole way) from ~50m isk to ~75m isk.


Doesn't go nearly far enough.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games.
Suddenly Spaceships.
#59 - 2014-04-29 13:57:23 UTC
Didn't think of POS fuel.. Wow, i thought you might have come up with an intelligent idea.
Resgo
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#60 - 2014-04-29 13:58:01 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


At first glance this appears to be an excellent idea.

Though if you'd like to increase the size of the fuel bay on top of it, it'd be much appreciated. My fleet hangar always seems to be full of fuel due to the fuel bay being undersized to begin with.