Goon controlled CCP via Goon CSMs. No, seriously, it was them. This is not a joke or sarcasm.
3 Likes
Remember the t2 bpo farce?
And now PA control CCP, was CCP free and independent at any time ?
I wish, maybe if they did they’d finally grow some balls as a company and throw out all the goonpatches and all the shiht they brought.
Everyone knows this, yet nobody wants to acknowledge it.
Its bizarre.
1 Like
There is now a mass limit for ships beeing able to use Flex Gates in the new build on SISI so Supers, Titans and my mom can’t use them.
Much appreciated and thx for listening, CCP!
4 Likes
Maybe they’ll fix that rapid missile launcher reload time…
Its pretty much the same in Delve, sadly. Spam the space with small stuff 23/7 which you can only effectively hit with heavy AOE and guess what happens…people bring the best ships that can do that. And that are battleships, supercarriers and titans. And then the whine around because they die in bombing-runs/smartbombs/BFGs…
1 Like
I think you mean to say “Bubble the space up so the only ships that can get in and have any chance of catching a target are small ships that you can only effectively hit with heavy AOE, then drop BFG Titans on them and look confused that they complain”
1 Like
They cost ozone based on ship mass
Mmm, but its trivial.
Unless something is done about the reported low 1bil cost from SiSi, the more I tend to think they need to be like Wormholes, in that they are expendable and collapse after a maximum mass has passed through them.
This also makes it possible to implement a series of Player Gates that have more mass capacity at higher cost for the gates, much like Upwell structures get quadratically more expensive the larger they are.
1 Like
Another way would be to impliment multiplicative ozone (possibly + other resources) cost formula per size/mass of each ship jumped so that for example the costs for jumping a frigate, destroyer cruiser would remain trivial, the costs of jumping battlecruiser, battleship would be a bit more, the cost of jumping a dred would be medium, the cost of jumping carriers or faxes would be high, etc. etc. all the way to lets say 1 bil for a titan.
while initially due to stockpiles this would make jumping caps OP, it would over time deplete the stockpiles. not only that but it would have a positive impact in the game as a whole due to the depletion as other aspects of the game which are currently imbalanced due to caps would be greatly affected in the longterm.
Yeah, but given how cheap these gates would seem to be, I dont think it justifies them as a permanent structure. I think they should collapse like WHs when their maximum mass capacity is exceeded, per type of Player Gate.
This will keep the Gate market fluid, and reduce somewhat the impact of Player Gates on projection, as you will have to transport to and place Gates at both ends regularly to move more ships through in either direction.
Lore-wise this can be explained as the Player Gate forming a temporary wormhole between two player gates in two systems, which individually collapse due to mass constraints, destroying the structure on either end, depending on what class of Player Gate it is with what max mass capacity.
So a central hub can still operate a larger gate, to multiple smaller gates (or large ones). But once mass limit is exhausted on either end, the WH collapses and the structure is destroyed on the side of the WH network where the gates maximum mass is exhausted.
Add more granularity to Player Gates, so that a S/M/L/XL gate can only be transported from a player gate of the same size or larger, to an end player gate of the same size or larger. So to transport a M gate via player gate, you need atleast an M player gate on both ends of the connection. If you want to transport a larger gate to a destination gate that is smaller, you will instead have to teransport it there by non-player gate means, or the larger gate be manufactured in that end destination system for placement there.
This can be explained by some mechanic similar to the Planck restriction on containers within containers such that you cant transport a larger gate into or out of a smaller gate.
TLDR:
- Implement Player Gates as essentially mass capacity limited Wormholes between two Player Gates.
- When the mass capacity of a Player Gate is exhausted, the Wormhole collapses, destroying the Player Gate in question. The Player Gate implodes when the artificial Wormhole implodes.
- Implement S/M/L/XL Player Gates with greater mass limit capacity, longer placement timer, and greater cost for larger Player Gates.
- Forbid the transport of a Player Gate into and out of Player Gates that do not match or are smaller than the Player Gate being transported. Ie: You cant transport a L sized Player Gate into or out of M sized Player Gate. You can transport a L sized Player Gate into and out of L or XL sized Player Gates.
i think some sort of cooldown period depending on mass moved through + small, medium and large types of gates with different masses would be the best solution if the gates wont give fatigue. At least in this way movement is still somewhat limited but massive re-staging or reinforcement operations can still take place in a more timely manner.
As per every other citadel i think it should simply use fuel blocks pr hour; even when on coldown.
Smaller gangs can still pass through relatively quickly.
Larger gangs and ships can not.
Interesting side effect would be emergency type defence ops having to wait on a cooldown because a titan went through the gate 3 minutes ago…?
Make the Player Gates like Wormholes.
They implode after the mass capacity depending on size is reached, destroying the gate on that end, either entry or exit.
i think having them destroyed completely makes them rather pointless.
Having them as permanent, makes them pointless.
Better they implode so that there is always demand for more, and they need to be replaced.
id prefer middle ground as i think that tends to be better for all parties.
A nice definition among others. This road from what EVE was once, or it is, to the modern ‘Counter Strike’ model can change the game negatively. It’s harder and harder for adventurers to chose their way to play the game just because that activity is completely nerfed and can’t replace the funds and resources, by doing that, or that activity is totally impossible and time consuming just because CCP over-buffed other aspects of the game in somebody favor (means big alliances). So, I want to add something more. There isn’t only a move away from characters as identity, but from corporations as identity also. CCP chose a way to move from individuality and quality to quantity, long time ago.
2 Likes
That is also suicidal business model. Let say that 1 rorqual replaces 20 mining barges. As a result CCP receive one subscription by one player running rorqual instead of 20 subscription of 20 players running mining barges.
So much about CCPs financial “wisdom” -_-