Sorry as a person with an Max skilled jf altund i currently pay 100 mil per tripMail and this willund go up to 200 mil. Just because ccp was to ignorant to copy the fuel cost from pos system to the structures. You say, that you want to promote small alliances but only very large will profit from this change.
2 Likes
Ya know that whole attitude thing I said you need to work on? I think that went over your head.
What kind of argument are you even trying to make pointing to aspects of the game that obviously were best removed from the game. You are COMPLETELY missing the point that if a change is made to parts of the game which worked to balance certain other aspects of the game (in this case asset safety and production), then its removal needs to be immediately followed by another to maintain balance and draw from that area of the market - preferably by the same aspect of the game receiving the change in the first place - to maintain balance.
Just saying âI donât want to fuel it because it wasnât funâ and âthis is a new featureâ doesnât mean you can throw balance out the window and have perfect safety in return for NO work. Make the fuel smaller to itâs easier to move around for all I care, Iâm arguing that for the sake of balance you need to require people to put forth effort in return.
Iâm also arguing that passing that cost on to every cap pilot who will only consume the isotope portion of the equation is not a proper act of balancing the situation. You have yet to provide a reason why this is the proper solution, and are only repeating the same dribble over and over again which proves nothing but your ignorance in relation to game balance. I never proclaimed myself an expert, but Iâm not so blind as to think that perfect item safety for no continual cost is not balanced. And that passing a cost to all cap pilots who do not profit from jumping their capital vs those using these resources directly in the production of a good for profit as it was prior to this change is simply not right.
1 Like
Fozzie youâre just cold blooded dude⌠seriously.
my jaw on the floor so much with this announcement⌠that I just âŚ
cantâŚ
1 Like
Have some perspective. The number of space pixels needed to move other pixels to yet again another bit of pixels changed.
Great change, more ice mining hisec pubbies to shoot!
Low sec is dead, the majority of low sec corps/alliances have gone to null
1 Like
First off, Asset Safety is a completely different issue.
Second, I donât actually disagree with the premise that CCP should have found another way to make ice useful when they were removing the POS fuel requirements, rather than just pushing the cost onto cap pilots. Iâm a cap pilot. This is going to affect my jump fuel cost. I can also afford multiple billions of isk being invested in a carrier, faxes, rorqual, jf, blops, and super-carrier, so a couple hundred million extra here and there? Really, Iâm not going to care.
And thatâs if I was even paying for it myself, but you know, Iâm part of a well-organized alliance, so we hand out fuel for combat capitals for free.
But see, you havenât actually been arguing that point. Youâve been arguing âCCP needs to make citadels all need all the same fueling requirements POSs doâ. Which is a different thing than âthey need to find another way to draw that economic yieldâ. One puts the impetus on the devs to do work to balance their changes, the other tells them to make the players do work that theyâve been saying they donât really have the time for.
A possible solution was already touched on in this thread: Supertopes.
Enriched Isotopes. Jump Boosters. Thereâs different ways to approach it, but: add a new ice product that will take up some of the glut left by the reduced demand for fuel blocks, something that reduces jump fatigue. Maybe itâs a different jump fuel - something that uses up 2 topes and 2 LO to make fuel thatâs 1.5x the volume of normal fuel, but cuts fatigue in half. Maybe itâs a new âelectrolyte replensihment boosterâ that you consume as a drug and reduces fatigue.
Point here is: the workload for picking up the slack for a dev change shouldnât be on the players, which is where your arguments keep trying to put it.
1 Like
Motion to call it âBrawndo.â
2 Likes
Been waiting for a nerf like the for a time nowâŚtime to cash in on the Stock pile of topes and LO.
patch January 2018 - kick off Fozzie (and his team) from the CCP, and start doing something with the game.
You punish people for playing your game. Go back to the roots eveonlineâŚ
Fozzie and his team apparently hate BO, CAP, SC, TIT pilots. He should sometimes try to play with fatigue etc.
1 Like
Enriched isotopes are a possible answer, if youâre referring to the ones that allow for reduced fatigue. But that comes with a whole host of issues I doubt CCP thought about when the made the code which calculates fatigue given past statements. But that is indeed one solution, but not enough I think youâd agree. CCP already said they wouldnât consider jump boosters a while ago because they would simply be made mandatory and run counter to what they wanted to achieve with jump fatigue, unlike the isotope feature which would only be used for extended trips.
Iâm not sure how Iâm throwing the slack entirely on the players with what I say. Iâve been saying that CCP needs to find another way to consume fuel blocks. Making citadels still require fueling for the safety they offer isnât asking a hell of a lot, but itâs entirely on CCP to figure out how to do this and not make it too horrible a task. I would say with certainty that such a fuel usage should not be implemented until they figure out the answer to that question.
The idea is as briliant and usefull as your (now clearly pure fail) sov, jump fatigue and jump range nerfs and gonna be of about same benefit to everyone. Please stop touching eve in general or youll end up with buncha alfa accounts in completely fuckd up game
2 Likes
I mean, itâs just content, right? Isnât that what everyone wants?
Yep. I had great fun pipebombing the Goon fleet the other day.
1 Like
Not worth a sh*t to me till they put a Jump Drive on the Bowhead. Even if they limit the JD Bowhead to industrials onlyâŚanything is better than that bs.
3 Likes
Hereâs my suggestion for jump fatigue.
Make the mass of the ship correlated with the amount of jump fatigue you get. Lore: heavier ships are more resistant to the perils of jumping.
Small ships like interceptors will get the most fatigue since their ships are small and frail. Make large ships like battleships get less fatigue because they are massive and strong. It doesnât have to be by much. But this would definitely help bring back together the disparity in fleet mobility that discourages escalations of medium range fights.
1 Like
Your compulsive fixation with Delve is becoming mania.
Seriously, you need help.
Newer version of Windows no longer have a boot.ini file. Thwarted by Microsoft.
1 Like
100% agree with you Argyle
The bowhead should have had a jump drive in it⌠no matter the debate⌠the only t2 cap ship in the game is a fawking jump freighter⌠this shows how much of a limit and âvisionâ ccp has⌠they just know how to break, patch, rebreak, and move numbers around to make it seem ânewââŚ
1 Like
Fozzie, you do realize that by increasing the cost of jumping, you are penalizing jumping so that it will end up discouraging jumping, right? I will bet you dollars to donuts that people will end up jumping less often than before - especially if they live in Deep Null sec. As a method of encouraging usage, taxation in fact discourages usage.
1 Like