Yo can we get a breakdown or information on how the mining crystal changes are going to affect the BPOs/BPCs for those items? Am I going to lose a whole swath of prints or end up with a bunch of duplicates?
Knowing exactly which of my prints are gonna become useless or convert is going to help tons. Please let us know, thanks!
True, thought are that 5% that like to help and encourage new player development…
How orca will rep others in high sec ?
Have you noticed the fitting requirements for the Compact Industrial Core II for the Orca? You cannot fit it + Compact 500mn MWD + 3 Command Bursts. You need to remove 1 Command Burst and add a small Powergrid implant. Presumably you keep the range and efficiency Command Bursts so lose the Shield Command Burst? = less tank for your fleet?
Could someone check these Powergrid calcs please?
Did they increse even PG and CPU for these ships?
Orca:
+100% Drone Damage
+400% bonus to Remote Shield Booster Optimal Range
-90% to effective distance travelled for jump fatigue
+50% Command Burst area of effect range
+50% Mining Foreman Burst are of effect range
+250% Tractor Beam range
+100% Tractor Beam velocity
+500% Survey Scanner range
Can fit 3 Command Burst modules
Can fit Compact Industrial Core
Rorquals are going to be the only means to compress Moon Ore - WRONG???
Mining Crystals BPO’s that have been ME/TE to 10/20 and BPC’s are now going to be what???
So we are going to 6 Skills from 20 on reprocessing ???
* Adding new variants for each mining crystal
* Standard yield
* Higher yield, high waste, less reliable
* Lower yield, very high waste, very unreliable
this is going to become a mess, maybe, we will see
I have a fully trained Orca/Rorq alt which never got around to mine with those ships (training only recently finished). I’ll probably take up that brilliant Teamwork idea from CCP and make that account alpha. Let others do the work of alts - one account per person!
With remote shield booster?
If there is no limited engagement (ie. the mining vessels haven’t shot back), then the Orca can rep them fine.
Keep safety green and if any of the mining vessels engage back with drones, then the Orca just won’t rep those ones.
Until you compress it, then it is directly taken from what you’ve mined.
I came here to write this. 
The more people pvping the better.
Not sure how you’d fire the owners of CCP.
This looks great.
Glad you didn’t nerf the Venture much at all, it is a great ship. And the Expedition Frigates now look even more amazing.
Waste is a great mechanic. Very realistic. I think it adds a cool element to mining and compression. Makes things feel more sci-fi for sure.
I hear you guys will be implementing a new “Player Milking Station” that will automatically deduct a small percentage of the player’s income to ease the hassle of player subbing fatigue. I for one know how tedious it is to not only google Eve Online click a few hyperlinks auto-fill my CC info AND remember the security code. This will truly help the forced conversion from a lowly “Solo” player into a vastly superior " 
Multi-boxer ".
Thanks CCP for meeting the needs of your player base! I look forward to playing out the rest of what’s left in my sub!
riiiiiiiight. i’ve seen those setups. cute, useless. hilariously so. probably work once but this game isn’t about one hit wonders surprising folks repeatedly.
Looks interesting.
A couple of comments:
The numbers should be adjusted:
| Expected Waste Volume Multiplier | Expected Waste Probability | |
|---|---|---|
| Tech I Modules | 1 | 75% |
| Tech II Modules | 1 | 33% |
| Faction Modules | 1 | 25% |
| Tech I Drones | 1 | 100% |
| Tech II Drones | 1 | 75% |
The original values were a bit too favourable for faction modules. I’ve adjusted it. Faction is still the best, but not overwhelmingly. Still desired, but only marginally better (this way tech 2 stays competitive with it in price/performance)
Suggest changing the values in / to
Compression efficiency is as follows:
And:
a: is this now the station compression or the in space compression?
b: I would have turned the in-station compressing to the same effectiveness but would have introduced a TAX for it. Taxes can hurt industrialists just as much as loss of efficiency!
c: tied the station compression tax into the standing of the individual in relation to the station owner - introducing a minigame of sorts so that you could alleviate the negative aspects of in station compressing by schmoosing yourself into the goodwill of the station owner (standings for NPCs, Corp standings for Player owned stations)
Mining crystals
the hell?
Also, it should be aligned with some tradeoffs, should it be not?
IMHO something like this:
| Type | Yield | Waste | Reliability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Low yield | Low | High | |
| B | Standard (Balanced) yield | Medium | Medium | |
| C | High yield | High | Low |
This way there are alternative routes to choose from:
Should be better, right?
I mean it’s not like all you have ever done is nerf the game constantly for two years.
Does this last “balance” update mean your two year plan to punish the players is finally coming to an end, or do you have more punishments in store for us?
“All sticks and no carrots” is your motto right?
How responsible do you feel for the massive drop in player count that has occurred during your nerf crusade?
Your vision is flawed and does not reflect the reality of the game and disregards the implications of removing a role recently given to a ship that was widely popular.
The approach to scarcity was a poor plan to begin with, its taking elements from survival games, such as resource scarcity, combining it with design decisions that are hard to call anything other than shovelware, requiring more hours/opportunity cost to get the same outcome.
These radical changes to the game are going to reduce player retention which we have already seen indirectly with the PCU flatlining post war. It is likely this set of changes is going to push more players out of the game, the chances of replacing them are slim as these kind of development decisions rightfully earn you a negative opinion among gamers that will thwart the recruitment of new players.
Had it not been for the war the playerbase would have united and turned on this entire scarcity design long ago.
These changes as proposed in this poorly presented dev blog with all the details hidden inside a spreadsheet are incoherently terrible and unacceptable
These changes are not only unneeded they’re taking away from changing actual issues in the game, like how the phoebe patch reduced the player interaction ability throughout many regions of nullsec creating large swaths of space that have little to no interaction on a regular basis and by the nature of the reduction in jump ranges made the space much less accessible by hostile entities while providing an overly dense cluster of solar systems. Combined with the lack of an NPC station set within these area’s this creates an overly stagnant environment that results in boring pve gameplay. Changing the geography of the game is needed, moving regions and solar systems to decompress these area’s of space combined with adding npc core’s would be a step in the right direction.
Also regarding the “Dynamic distribution system” In before it’s just BRMs for rock size. And regarding BRMs it is quite possibly the more poorly implemented unfairly targeted nerf I’ve ever seen. It appears to be targeting bots, as it is only directed towards nullsec. But its very nature is buffing the bots through the law of averages by removing the isk generation ability of a casual player that logs in after the BRMs have been destroyed. This system should be scrapped entirely and if the concept remains in the game should be a diminishing return system on a per player basis, this would directly nerf the bots, have limited negative effect to a casual player, but would force the hardcore players to diversify their gameplay. I would also extend this concept to “commodity ratting” replacing the commodities with bounties so the diminishing return system would be fairly applied, as well as allow corps to directly tax the actions.
Regarding an alternative to scarcity a dynamic approach to material overages have been done instead, fighting the inflation with increased demand, this would have been a much less drastic approach allowing the markets to slowly adjust instead of shocking the system creating immediate market inversions that still have not rectified.
where is pvp in this ? it’s just player vs easier targets (that were already easy…) 
They ll be extra-“meat”