EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2012-06-20 12:16
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-06-21 18:59
  • Number of Posts: 2,673
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 14,816

CCP Fozzie

Security Status 4.9
  • C C P Member since
  • C C P Alliance Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Hey folks. Thanks for the feedback and questions so far! I'll be doing a larger Q&A response at a later time but for now one quick answer to a question that's coming up a lot:

    We currently plan to phase out siphons since they don't really fit with the new system (there will be much more direct ways to steal moongoo). Siphons were a solid attempt at achieving a worthy goal, but for a number of reasons that particular implementation was doomed to extremely niche status. We think that overall direct spaceship interaction will be a more fun way of engaging in guerilla attacks against moon mining infrastructure.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Glad to be able to get this ball rolling and start bringing the community into the early process of developing these structures. We're releasing these blogs now so that we can focus Fanfest on listening to you folks. We also look forward to hearing from you all in this thread.

  • Dev blog: The Advancing World of Upwell Structures in EVE Information Center

    We hope that many of you will find the time to complete this survey and help give us your feedback on what you want to see next from Upwell Structures. And big thanks to the CSM for their participation in this process as well.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Coelomate Tian wrote:
    Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch.

    If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf?

    The impact on drone mining is expected and we did our internal practical yield testing with the new asteroid sizes to make sure that the resulting m3/hour were something we'd be happy with.

    On another quick note, we've added an increase to lock ranges for the Covetor and Exhumers. +5km for the Covetor, Skiff, and Mackinaw, and +10km for the Hulk.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    JonasML wrote:
    From the original dev post for Rorquals...."Whether these modes are running or not, the ability to field 5 ‘Excavator’ Mining Superdrones will make the Rorqual the greatest mining vessel in the history of New Eden." Well that's not only gone out the window, it's slipped off the ledge and fallen to it's splattery death 15 stories below. Take pictures now before the messy fallout get's swept up.
    After these changes the Rorqual absolutely maintains its title as the greatest mining vessel in the history of New Eden. Nothing else comes close to its mining ability (not to mention all the other things it does).

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Querns wrote:
    It'd be interesting to see the actual data used to determine the health of the "mineral economy."

    We already know that CCP has no metrics for drone mining. If they did, it'd show up in the Monthly Economic Reports. Speaking as someone with intimate knowledge of the mining output of my alliance's region, I can guarantee you that it is still broken. CCP Quant has said as much in months past.

    So what is left to measure? It could be any number of potential things, but what I suspect it is (and please, prove me wrong here,) is that the Jita price of minerals (and potentially other major market hubs) was the deciding factor.

    To be brief, looking at Jita is not particularly representative of the state of mining as a whole. I can certainly go into more detail, but it'd be pointless to do so without confirmation that my hypothesis is true.

    For what it's worth, I had been expecting another rorqual nerf, and am expecting more to come. However, the nerfs should be for the right reasons, and not spurious ones.
    One of the wonders of working on a 14 year old game is that many bits of functionality are actually implemented multiple times in separate ways. The EVE server actually records mining events in three ways that I have found so far (there very well may be more) and although one of them doesn't record drone mining, the other two do. For instance, this is why sov industry indexes are getting the data from drone mining. This did indeed cause some confusion immediately after release.
    We plan to get around to fixing the "info events" mining records that the monthly public report uses and honestly hoped that we would have found time to fix it earlier but other tasks have managed to take priority from it so far. Since CCP Quant's time is so valuable and the fix to the info events logs has been perpetually "around the corner" we haven't rewritten the newsletter counter to use one of the other log sources.
    TL:DR is that we do indeed have data for drone mining, as well as data for ore/mineral stockpiles and industry jobs.

    Aleverette wrote:
    Now I have a question after all these buff/nerf charades EVE have been through.
    What was the purpose of you buffing Rorqual? Were you trying to make it a powerful solo mining ship so players with only one or two accounts could be involved in industrial activities? Or just simply wanted to give current Rorqual pilots a new toy to play with?

    If the answer is the second one, go ahead and change the number whatever you like.

    But if the answer is the first one, then I sincerely suggest you should reconsider how to fit Rorqual into the universe instead of giving it a big ass invincibility and a set of gamebreaking drones. EVE is a complicated system (at least more complicated than most of other MMO) , thus, providing a new set of game mechanics in depth is necessary in order to increase gameplay variety. You rush too much.
    So I’ll start with the disclaimer that EVE we don’t try and define every use that players will have for a tool we give them. We tend to build tools with at least one or two core uses and expect players to find more.
    The core role we designed the new Rorqual for was quite clearly stated in the dev blog announcing it. It was built to be a mining foreman ship, providing a number of valuable benefits to a group of mining ships. Each of these benefits may or may not be considered "enough" to justify the ship by themselves but the goal is that together they represent more than the sum of their parts. Direct mining ability is one of these features but so is support for other miners and defense for the fleet.
    So the shorter version of the answer is that although we have no problem with people solo mining in Rorquals (as long as their yields aren't harming the overall economy), the core "victory condition" for the mining foreman ship designs would be for mining fleets to want at least one mining foreman ship as part of the mix and for the Rorqual to be an interesting and viable option for that boosting/defending/mining combined role.

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Seriously, if CCP could see this massive shift coming do you really think their magical foresight would somehow stop short of seeing the rage in this thread? Lol
    This is less rage than I expected tbh.

    I don’t know exactly how much it’ll help to say this, but let me state the following as directly as I can:
    We don’t make balance choices in an attempt to “bait and switch” people with injectors. We here at CCP are not evil geniuses playing 12 dimensional chess. We’re approaching ship design and balancing in exactly the same way that we did before the introduction of skill injectors, with the goal of creating a fun set of tools and choices for players to interact with.

    When we developed the original design for the Ascension Rorqual changes we stated our goals honestly in the dev blog. We wanted to create a distinct “mining foreman” role that players would enjoy playing and that would have a clear progression with three ships that are all viable in different situations and at different price points.
    One of the big areas of uncertainty when making a design like that one is the question of how strong you need to make aspects of a ship in order for players to consider it worth the risk. We had an extra wrinkle with the Rorqual since it was a pre-existing ship that had developed a stigma around it. We knew there would be inertia involved in player behavior that might cause the ship to remain underused if it ended up “just barely good enough”. We also knew that we didn’t have complete information about what that “just barely good enough” level was going to be, since we can only estimate the player behavior around changes like this.
    We knew ahead of time that we’d very likely need to make multiple changes to the balance of the Rorqual post-patch, just like with every other major balance change.
    At the end of the day we made our best guess about where that “just barely good enough” level was going to be and then tuned the Rorqual a little higher in order to overcome the player behavior inertia. In hindsight we overestimated how good the Rorqual would have to be in order to be worth the risk and cost.
    There’s a very good chance that we’ll need to make more changes to the Rorqual in the future, and if it turns out the next change needs to be a buff then we’ll buff it. It’s also possible that the next change might need to be another nerf, and we’ll make that determination once we see the impact of this change.

    Henry Plantgenet wrote:
    CCP can you make mining drones more intelligent and have them stop when the asteroid is empty?
    Like when they're actually empty and not just when the cycle is ended and a lot of overkill has happened?
    The inventory operation actually doesn’t happen until the drones get all the way back to your ship so they don’t know until that point that the asteroid is going to be empty. The good news is that the faster excavator cycle times will significantly reduce that waste.

    Witchy Bife wrote:

    i checked SISI today , yeah you increased the Mining Range from Hulks now , but the Maximum Target Range is Still at 35KM .
    even with Max skills you cant reach the Full Mining Range , since the Maximum Target range from the ship is limited.
    so CCP please Adjust the Range from the Ships too
    Yup good point I’ll take a look and get a bit of an increase in asap.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Now for some Q&A from the thread so far:

    Porthos Jacobs wrote:
    So if I bring Ewar to get a rorqual it cannot panic now. bonus
    The industrial core provides 100% ecm resistance (as well as very strong damp resistance). There's currently a bug that prevents the ECM resistance attribute from being displayed in the show info window, but we'll be fixing that bug at the same time.

    Retar Aveymone wrote:
    be honest, did you make the PANIC module a mining laser in some hilarious internal work-around for this issue
    Heh. No, the code just iterates over the list of locked targets and looks for something in the asteroid category. It doesn't even require the asteroid to be the selected target, just locked.

    Wibla wrote:
    Didn't see that nerf coming - oh wait, who am I kidding.

    If you want to make the mineral market healthier, have a look at the ore composition in nullsec ore anoms vs mineral usage. Mexallon is a bottleneck, while some other minerals are basically waste material at this point.

    The PANIC mod change is at least a first stab at a solution.
    There is definitely an imbalance between overall mineral use and the composition of the prospecting array anoms (much smaller than it once was, but there is room for more work there), although that is a separate issue to the overall mineral supply issues caused by Rorquals being too strong.

    Tau Cabalander wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.

    ... and what about ice fields?
    For these purposes, ice counts as an asteroid (technically it's anything within the "asteroid" inventory category). I'll edit the OP to clarify, good question.

    Luna TheMoonrider wrote:
    I don't have the numbers and all the big data, but it's seems a bit hard, second nerf in a row, without trying to effectively reduce the price of these very expensive drones.
    If the price drop accordingly, why not, but I feel sad for my mining friends.
    The current prices are a symptom of extremely high demand. Once the market cools down a bit we'll definitely re-evaluate and make changes to the components as needed. The price of Excavators is set by the player market and will only stay at whatever level people consider worth paying. If player's evaluation of how much they're worth changes, the price will change.

    Taunter wrote:
    Little bit of a kick in the balls Fozzie. Lets be honest.

    You shouldn't of had to nerf it, if you did the rebalance right in the first place.

    I'm not salty, I'm still going to use mine. I just think you wasted time.
    I'll readily admit that we went too high with the numbers in the initial release. However these kinds of things can always happen, and the only true solution is to be willing to make changes as necessary and observe the results. I would absolutely love to have an exact formula for predicting player behavior, but barring that all we can do is make our best guesses (taking player feedback into account) and then tweak and tweak again.

    Or'es'ka wrote:
    welp, CCP, you did it. You ruined the rorq for actual miners. Cant justify the 8 bill in drones plus another 2.7 bil for the ship, not to mention another 2-3 bil for the fit..... This is almost a 50% reduction. You need to seriously adjust the required mats to build excavators because they arent worth the insane price anymore.
    I can understand why you might feel that way right now, but people said the same thing when we announced the last Rorq nerf (and I'm sure they'll say the same thing when we announce the next Rorq nerf someday). If this change ends up going too far then we can always tweak up a bit, but these changes are actually relatively conservative considering the behavior changes that we're seeing and that we saw after the last set of changes.

    Jura McBain wrote:

    2 hulks 600M
    1 Rorq 12B.

    Now ,what is the point of mining whit rorqs?
    There has always been a premium for more powerful ships and abilities in EVE. As power increases, cost increases faster.
    We'll be happy with Rorq balance someday when players have interesting choices to make when deciding how many Rorquals to bring and how many Hulks to bring.

    Jura McBain wrote:
    CCP in August 2016: " Rorqs need love so people will use them again"

    CCP in Feb 2017: " Rorqs must be nerf"

    CCP are you mad? Please Sthaapppp Sthaapppppp
    We're confident that Post-March Rorquals will still be vastly more powerful than they were pre-Ascension.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far!

    I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes:

    There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:

    1. The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets.
    2. The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets.
    3. The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack.

    Use case #1 is the one that we've heard the most concern about from players and the one that many people have been suggesting alternate fixes for in this thread. However use case #3 is probably the most important one to study to help identify the best possible solution to all three problems.
    In the context of use case #3, simultaneous use of the PANIC module and entosis link isn't the problem as that is already disallowed. You can't activate the entosis link while the PANIC module is running and activating the PANIC module breaks the entosis connection and halts the capture progress. However even with these restrictions the sequential use of entosis links and the PANIC module can be very powerful. A Rorqual can start capturing the node and only activate PANIC if it comes under too much fire to tank normally. Then the PANIC module provides the time needed for a reinforcement fleet to arrive at the command node and drive off the attackers. In this case the issue isn't that the PANIC module can be used at the same time as the entosis link, but that the Rorqual can use the entosis link and keep the PANIC module as a "get out of jail free" option as needed.

    Keeping the three troublesome use cases above in mind, there are three core reasons we were attracted to the idea of approaching the problem with a situational PANIC activation restriction rather than through a similar restriction to what we already use with triage and the networked sensor array. I'll list them below in order from least important to most important:
    • There's value in trying to reach the same goal through a smaller number of rules that players will have to remember. Three separate rules (one for ewar, one for cynos and one for entosis) could probably be used to solve these problems but if we have an opportunity to reach the same goal with fewer exceptions we'll generally prefer the single rule.
    • If possible, we would like to preserve the use of both cynos and ewar by mining Rorquals while they are defending their fleet with the PANIC module. Cynos serve a valuable purpose in helping them get support fleets to their position, and ewar helps them present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period.
    • Most importantly, we were concerned that if we tried to solve the tackle and cyno use cases by restricting those functions while the PANIC module is running (similarly to how ewar is restricted while triage is active) or even by removing the ability to lock targets while the PANIC module is active, we would simply shift the problem into something more similar to what we're seeing with entosis right now. Although such restrictions would prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing with PANIC active, it would not prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing and then saving the PANIC activation as a "get out of jail free" card in case they come under too much fire. Considering the fact that people have the option of using multiple Rorquals and that even threatening a Rorqual's tank requires a fair amount of DPS to start with, this end result would be only a slight improvement on the current situation.

    As for the reasoning for this proposal including a target lock restriction instead of a proximity check, the main motivation is to avoid the server load associated with large area proximity checks. For people concerned about jams and damps, remember that the Industrial core provides 100% ecm resistance and 75-80% damp resistance while active. This proposal does mean that Rorquals will be more vulnerable after finishing the last rock in a belt and while moving, but our current impression is that those limited periods of extra vulnerability have the potential to generate interesting gameplay. It’s also worth remembering that the Rorqual has a very significant set of defenses even without the PANIC module.
    We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one.

  • [March] Mining Drone Specialization skill and T2 Mining Drones in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The reason for my cryptic post above is that we have already completed expanding the F shortcut to cause mining drones to mine repeatedly. :)

    More details can be found in this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6846951

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    On Feb 24th we posted some more detail on our thought process regarding PANIC restrictions and some initial Q&A here
    And we posted a second Q&A on March 1st which can be found here.

    Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback.

    These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy.

    At the same time we're preparing some other changes related to mining that have more to do with QoL and module balance.

    Here's the package of somewhat related changes we have in mind at the moment:

    Excavator Drones:
    We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy. I know it never feels good when things get nerfed but we're very confident that the Rorqual will continue to be an extremely powerful mining ship after these changes (not to mention the value provided by its other functions such as foreman links and defenses). We plan on continuing to make changes in this area as necessary over the coming months with the goal of keeping the mineral market healthy and ensuring that a wide variety of mining ships are viable.

    • Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life.
    • Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones.
    • In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread.

    PANIC Module:
    We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations.
    To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change:
    • Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid (including ice).

    I've posted a bit more explanation of why we're leaning towards this solution in a reply here. We're definitely interested in hearing what other options you folks can think of to reach the same goals, but please read that post first for background.

    Other misc mining changes:
    • Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus.
    • Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km).
    • Increasing the base lock range of Covetors, Skiffs and Mackinaws by 5km, and Hulks by 10km.
    • Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining.
    • We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed). This will also have an impact on drone mining yields by increasing orbit radius.

    These changes will be appearing on SISI for public testing over the next few days and we're very interested in hearing your feedback. Thanks!

  • [March] Mining Drone Specialization skill and T2 Mining Drones in EVE Technology and Research Center

    You guys should check out SISI once it comes up with the March release in the next day or two. :)

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far!

    On the subject of the bubble durations we understand that there are a lot of strong feelings about proper durations (both people who think they should be shorter and those who think they should be longer). Balancing between the needs of different types of players is always a tightrope and all I can say is that we'll continue to work hard trying to thread that needle.

    Some Q&A:

    Querns wrote:
    Couple of questions.
    1) If a bubble's lifetime expires, does it generate a killmail?
    I'm pretty sure it won't, due to the method of destruction used by the decay system.

    Querns wrote:
    B) Does the killmail generate for the person who drops it (at the personal level) and for the corporation (at the corporate level?)
    It's generated for whoever owns the bubble in space. So if it was "launched for self" the mail will generate for the person who dropped it, if it was "launched for corp" then it'll generate for the corporation.

    lanyaie wrote:
    Will Mobile warp disruptors have their material requirements changed due to this proposed change to balance for the increased consumption?
    Not at this time. If we do something more drastic in the future like dramatically shorten lifespans or making the bubbles disposable then we'd re-evaluate material inputs at that time and consider changes.

    Obil Que wrote:
    So, will killing a bubble generate a killmark?
    No, under their current implementation killmarks only come from killing piloted ships.

    Ashterothi wrote:
    My only real concern about this is a faction item being a t2 and not t1.

    But that is pretty minor.
    You'll see this more and more over time.

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Trespasser wrote:
    will the bubbles have a visible timer on them so that we can see how long that is left?

    Yup. It'll show up in the show-info windows in the same way as it does currently for mobile deployables with decay timers.

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hey everyone!

    After some discussion about anchored bubbles and interdiction nullification with the CSM at our recent summit here in Iceland we asked the CSM folks to help get some community discussion going on these topics so we could hear from all of you.

    Big thanks to the CSM and to everyone who participated in the threads on our forums and on the eve subreddit.

    From these threads it's clear that the community has a strong desire for some changes to mobile warp disruptors, as many of those topics kept coming up from many diverse voices.

    After taking in the feedback from these threads and discussing with the CSM some more we've got a proposed package of anchored bubble changes ready to get your feedback. These changes will be ready for you to try as soon as our upcoming March release hits the SISI test server.

    Most of these changes were things we've discussed with the community before and that we've had on our long-term wish list for quite a while. Back when we introduced mobile deployables in the Rubicon release we had rough plans to transfer the mobile disruptors over to the new mobile deployable system which would have given us most of these features for free, but we ended up getting snagged in some technical troubled related to corporation connections (replicating the launch for corp function with the mobile deployable system required more work that we ended up having to cut for time). I'm really glad that we were able to find some time after the CSM discussions to take another look and find opportunities to make these changes with a set of more surgical tweaks.

    Here's the changes we have in this proposed package:

    Mobile Warp Disruptors will generate killmails when destroyed.

    Mobile Warp Disruptors will decay and explode if left in space for extended periods of time.
    The numbers we have in mind for this first pass are quite conservative and are intended primarily to clean up long-term unattended bubbles. If the first pass works out we will reevaluate and decide if it is worth moving to shorter timers someday in the future. Scooping and re-deploying a bubble would reset the decay timer.
    The numbers we're working with right now are:

    • Two days for all T1 bubbles
    • One week for all T2 bubbles
    • Two weeks for all Syndicate bubbles

    Hitpoint and shield regen changes:
    • ~10% less HP for T1 bubbles
    • ~20% more HP for T2 bubbles
    • ~50% more HP for Syndicate bubbles
    • Significantly longer shield regen times for all anchored bubbles, which will reduce passive shield tanking by the bubbles and make destroying them with low DPS much easier

    Syndicate bubble specific changes:
    • Syndicate bubbles will gain bubble range equal to T2
    • The LP store offers for Syndicate bubbles will now require a T2 bubble instead of a T1 bubble as input

    We're very interested in hearing what you think of these changes. If we go ahead with them they will hit TQ in our 119.3 release in March.

  • [March] Mining Drone Specialization skill and T2 Mining Drones in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hey folks!

    Back when we announced the Ascension mining drone changes as part of the mining foreman ship revamp we mentioned that we'd be adding the new Mining Drone Specialization skill to the requirements for the T2 mining drones at a future point.

    Adding the Mining Drone Spec skill to the T2 mining drone requirements will have 2 effects:

    • You'll need to have the Mining Drone Spec skill trained to level 1 in order to launch and operate T2 mining drones.
    • T2 mining drones will start receiving the benefits of the Mining Drone Spec skill (+2% yield and speed per level)

    Since enough time has passed since Ascension to allow people to train the new skill we're currently planning on making this change in our upcoming 119.3 release scheduled for March 14th.

    This change will only impact the Mining Drone II items, as the 'Augmented' mining drones, the T2 ice harvesting drones and the 'Excavator' capital mining drones already use their appropriate spec skills.

  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hey folks, thanks for the feedback so far and keep it coming!
    We're watching this thread.

  • [February] Insurance in Upwell Structures & more from Team Five 0 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Gyges Skyeye wrote:
    So it looks like you snuck in a good one there.


    From the looks of it, your adding in a tax on every manufacturing job triggered by an alpha state clone. I'm not going to argue on the wisdom of it because there are pro's and cons. It reduces competitiveness of the free 4 slots alpha clones have which cuts both ways. It makes it harder for people with established capital to farm those free slots for low margin items. It makes it harder for new players to establish themselves in industry without paying for a plex.

    However, what I would like some more information on is the mechanics. It seems to me that you are planning on applying a 2% isk tax estimated cost of any job an alpha triggers. Mathematically I believe this should be equivalent to saying that Alpha clones will be operating where their effective system index = (real system index + 2)%. Is this correct?

    More clarity is appreciated.

    This extra industry tax for Alpha characters is the same one that's been in place since the Ascension expansion. We're not changing the mechanics in February, just making the UI clearer.
    This extra cost on Alpha industry was added last year due to legitimate community concerns that creation of arbitrarily large numbers of alpha industry alts could destabilize the market.

    You are right that the Alpha clone tax is similar to "effective system index = (real system index + 2)" except that the Alpha surcharge is added after the facility tax is calculated.

  • Something of troubling concern in EVE Communication Center

    Is this a thread where people compare like counts?

  • [December] Ending the deployment of new outposts and upgrades in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Would you please fix the game before you do anything else with the new structures? The industry window is currently utterly unusable because loading the tab Facilities in particular takes ages (longer than a freighter warp through a 50 AU system) and gets stuck often, loading contracts takes ages as well and the market is still sluggish.

    You still cannot remotely contract or remotely sell things in a citadel. You still have not fixed the issue with citadel access courier traps.

    Get to work on these issues before you progress with your structures plan!

    The issues you're describing are all near the top of our priority list and we're working on getting them fixed asap.

    The ending of new outpost deployments doesn't slow down work on those features and actually frees up more resources for fixing structure bugs and adding missing functionality.

  • [December] Excavator Mining Drone yield rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hey everyone. We've been keeping a close eye on how people are using the newly rebalanced Rorquals and it's been really exciting watching how well people have taken to the new gameplay.

    We have decided that we need to make a tweak in our December release next Tuesday to adjust the balance of mining Rorquals and keep the mining economy in a healthy place.

    We are planning two connected changes in this release:

    • Reducing the mining yield of 'Excavator' Mining Drones by 32%
    • Increasing the drop rates of the Elite Drone AI and Drone Coronary Unit rogue drone components

    We are continuing to keep an eye on all aspects of gameplay around the mining foreman ships. I know some players are hoping that we would make adjustments to other areas of Rorqual gameplay (such as ewar use while the PANIC module is running) but we feel comfortable leaving those aspects alone for now and continuing to observe how the metagame evolves. We of course reserve the right to make more changes to this or any other aspects of the Rorqual in upcoming patches to keep the ecosystem in balance.


Forum Signature

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie