“it would also provide a tank-bonused missile hull which does not currently exist…”
(Navy Scorpion shows visible confusion)
Standards! Standards!
I am never offended by “dangling participles” in the spoken word, but personally always strive to avoid egregious use of them in written work.
Now, about that headline the other day about Eve’s “empyrean economy”… they really do not have a clue as to what some of these big, fancy words mean, but will insist on employing them anyway, presumably in a misguided belief that it makes them look clever. 
Corp Logos that don’t look like they were made in 1973 when?
2 Likes
Opining without real statistical data is not a good idea, due to the bias that emotions affect thought.
Maybe we all do that here.
EVE executives don’t want players to pay their subscription and have fun with Marauders.
They want Players who buy ships with PLEX.
In general no one should be successful. (this is called leveling down)
The rules of the game must change all the time.
The idea is: buy omega, buy omega and fly only easily destroyable ships, EVE needs you to swallow bitter and spit sweet.
From now on 30, 35, 40, 45… seconds for the bastion module is illegal.
The ganks are the legal ones since they promote trade (they burn their loot, they don’t sell it ;)), the Marauders players are the illegal ones.
It confuses me, it seems that they try to force players to choose the worst for them or confuse with changes to the rules of the game from time to time.
If I were you, I would invent a new module that applied to Marauders makes their bastion delay their cycle, in a random value greater than 30 seconds, this is much better since there is another player involved.
You can also require some type of ammunition that is adaptable to any missile launcher (its manufacture requires Triglavian materials), without requiring creating a new module.
It would be much better if they say, we were wrong when:
Past: The bastion module loop was very long and many didn’t use the marauders for that reason (I have a vague idea I read this somewhere a long time ago)
Present: The cycle is very short and generates a lot of destruction from other players (no, destruction by ganks is fine)
Future: The bastion module cycle is very long, at first it seemed to work but over time its use was declining and the players moved to another ship, should we nerf that ship or better reduce the basion cycle time again? .
2 Likes
I find it kind of funny too - right after they gave the NFI an utterly useless utility high slot specifically because matari ships are famed for utility high slots - then they just randomly take a utility high away and give it to a low as a debuff, but in a lot of scenarios that extra low slot is going to be a buff lol
will Manufacturing AND copying/invention jobs be based on the same formula ?
previously non-manufacturing, non-research activities were based on a smaller % of the EIV. like 2% base.
- Before, copy cost of a run of 100 EIV in 3% cost index in station( 10% tax) was 100×2/100×(3+10)/100 = 0.26 isk.
- After, it becomes 100×(3/100+0.25/100+0.25/100)=3.5 so a multiplication of copying fee by 13.4
Is it taken into account ? Is it agreed on ?
Same values for invention.
Question! I know it’s only a couple days until the release, but I’m curious about the updated component blueprints. Specifically, the LSBU and AIPS. The the ‘old’ material values being reduced to zero, those values shown there don’t make any sense. The blueprint doesn’t call for those amounts for 1 run nor do they correspond to an equivalent per-unit amount, and those values also don’t represent the yield from reprocessing either.
So, are the new values correct to the blueprint? Or do they also represent something not immediately obvious?
I have to say the next patch is looking good.
I have some questions about the new projects:
- Will the “Deliver Item” option allow you to output a build directly to the new Project hanger?
- If you are building something like a Dreadnaught that has many capital components, can you use 1 project to track the building of the individual components? OR will you need to make whatever it is 10 or so different projects to track the build?
- Is there a way to set a reward and autopay rewards on completion of a project, or any plans to add that in the future?
About LP Taxation
INSIST: the LP tax rate should be a separate setting from the ISK tax
PREFER: advanced LP tax settings, specifying what NPC corps to be taxing LP from (ignoring ones that won’t yield useful amounts or types of LP) … if not a specific list, then a set of filters for faction/type/etc, or maybe also filters for amount (example: don’t take the tax if the amount taken would be less than X, or cap the amount taken to Y)
1 Like
Perfect reminder it costs “nothing” to create your own corp 
Do not throw away 11% ISK to NPC corps.
Fee is what? 10k ISK? And corp management lv 1
One gets the impression that the CCP treats us for idiots with constant nerfs of ships and from the new new colors of ships, stations and outposts. Maybe it’s time to stop doing nonsense because it already causes irritation and you want to enter and pay such a project less and less.
1 Like
Almost everything in this patch I am happy with except the primary issue I have is this whole director thing. Why did they add a brand manager role, but not a project manager role?
As CEO I need to be able to delegate project manager responsibilities to my sub-leaders without necessarily handing over Director roles to them. That’s soo much power to give to people who I might need to, for example, simply manage inventory for the project hangar.
What’s going to happen is I am not going to have project managers (since I’m not in a position yet to promote people to director roles) and instead I’ll be doing all of the project management, inventory management, myself. 
I don’t understand why they made a brand manager role but not a project manager role.
Any other gripes I have are pretty minor, loving most of the changes other then what I’ve said here.
Rip jfing. Cynoed in t2 dreds lancing jfs gonna kill logistics.
Good morning!
Just some quick feedback on changes to ships and module changes. The idea I have is that, just like in real life, existing ships/modules can be retrofitted (for free) with the new change if the owner wishes to do so, but also can stay asis if the owner desires them to do so. Once they are destroyed or fit to a new or owner upgraded ship however, they will then take on the new characteristics permanently.
Have a good day,
Sub
It is an expansion of the in-game functionality. Particularly for players who previously did not have access to out-of-game systems. Having clarified that for you, I’m certain you’ve had access to out-of-game systems since before the game even existed and in fact coded said systems yourself, therefor you feel nothing but the immense disappointment of being let-down once more.
Dear CCP, since you are changing the Marauder:
There is the “Bastion Module I”. Any chance there will be a T2 variant at some point? If not, could you at least delete the 1 from the name, because who says 1, must also say 2
1 Like
Much much much doubt on that.
We can always hope! Just like a shield logi BS 
2 Likes
I’m happy for you that you like it. It is doubtful that I will ask your permission next time to not like something. Instead of writing comments on comments, try to criticize the subject at hand, if you have a view you wish to share.
2 Likes
The changes to the Capital Core Temperature Regulators and Neurolink Enhancers will lower the cost of all Capital Ships. We are also changing the PI consumed by the Life Support Backup Units and Auto-Integrity Preservation Seals from P1 to P2 planetary interaction commodities. This will make hauling the build materials for them much easier.
CCP, I dont think you realize the contradiction here. I currently have approx 50 PI operations set up dedicated solely to Life Support Backup Units and Auto-Integrity Preservation Seals. Currently, all I have to do is haul P1 from the planet to the station and start manufacturing. Nice and simple. Now i’ll have to haul P1 from planet to station, make neat little stacks of each P1, then haul these P1’s back to a factory planet, then manufacture P2, then haul back to a station and then manufacture in the station. All you have done is doubled my work load and time sink.
Also, now I have to give up several of my P1 planets so that I can set up P2 planets which will result in lost income due to reduced P1 production. I manage my PI once a week and for me to output the same amount of Life Support Backup Units and Auto-Integrity Preservation Seals managing everything once a week under this new system will require me to convert 10-15 of my P1 setups to P2 setups. Nevermind the 10+ hours I just spent tearing down and creating new P1 setups because you changed all the P1 requirements around. Sadly I crunched the P2 time sink numbers and requirements last before ripping all my setups apart and setting up new ones.
I for one will no longer be producing Life Support Backup Units and Auto-Integrity Preservation Seals at the rate of several thousand of each per week, i’ll be switching to ZERO produced. Im just gonna dump my P1 on the market and leave it at that. I just not worth the misery and time sink under the new system.
Peace 0/
3 Likes
CCP just needed to limit the amount of Ancillary Shield Boosters that can be placed on Marauders, just like they did for capital ships. I have long had the impression that a lot of people in CCP do not play EVE online themselves and do not fully understand what is happening there. Therefore, patches designed to balance the ships in the game are so ambiguous and raise many questions.
3 Likes