open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The not-so-great-after-all deep safe nerf of 2010
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

DaiTengu
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.04.17 19:55:00 - [151]
 

Edited by: DaiTengu on 17/04/2010 19:55:47

I'm curious as to what's going to happen to the titan wreck memorial in C9N-CC, as, if memory serves, it's like 100au out from the furthest celestial.

Will it be moved? Is it considered a celestial object itself?

Lobster Man
Pigs On Teh Wing
Posted - 2010.04.17 19:59:00 - [152]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: EdTeach
Is there a reason for the seemingly arbitrary 20AU limit? Every probe has more range than that.


As mentioned in the previous reply, the issue is less range and more volume. A 150AU radius system has an "internal volume" of ~14m cubic AU (if my math is right). The 170AU sphere you get with the 20AU extension has a volume of ~20m cubic AU. If we punched that out to 50AU, it'd be ~33m. 20AU was a number we settled on as being "about right" in terms of not making it too constricted in small systems while also not making it excessively large in big systems.


While I can appreciate the whole spherical volume argument, I've never really encountered much "above" or "below" the ecliptic of any given solar system...aside from some systems which have stargates way above or below.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.17 20:17:00 - [153]
 

Originally by: Yaay
The fact that you just quoted that system makes me think you have a vested interest in this happening for one side or the other of a current conflict. If that's the case, 1, you should be fired, and 2 you should at least remove yourself from this fix that nobody wants.

Or he is just using the system that the majority of the whiners are currently fighting in to give a point of reference...

...be careful not to let the tinfoil hat slip off your head... Rolling Eyes
Originally by: Yaay
Deep safe's have in no way hindered this game's performance....

So you have a copy of EVE's code and know everything about what does and doesn't affect the game's performance?
Originally by: Yaay
Removing them with the current game performance is just going to **** people off and make this game even more playable.

Laughing

Princess Almira
Posted - 2010.04.17 22:49:00 - [154]
 

even though I m not using deep space safe spot, it was obviously bad approach to fix things.
good job ccp at steping back and accepting your mistake

Alynna Nechayev
Posted - 2010.04.17 23:20:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Yaay
The fact that you just quoted that system makes me think you have a vested interest in this happening for one side or the other of a current conflict. If that's the case, 1, you should be fired, and 2 you should at least remove yourself from this fix that nobody wants.

Or he is just using the system that the majority of the whiners are currently fighting in to give a point of reference...

...be careful not to let the tinfoil hat slip off your head... Rolling Eyes
Originally by: Yaay
Deep safe's have in no way hindered this game's performance....

So you have a copy of EVE's code and know everything about what does and doesn't affect the game's performance?
Originally by: Yaay
Removing them with the current game performance is just going to **** people off and make this game even more playable.

Laughing



You realize how stupid you are? a BM is just set of 3 stored values (probably double type): x y and z to denote coordinates in 3D environment.

Whether they are within system boundaries or not does not effect the game lag.
What Yaay refers to, is them being used to bridging fleets into system with 500 ppl already in it (without dying while your grid loads) - CCP consistently refused to address this issue on both threads.

At least they are consistent about something! Neutral

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.17 23:34:00 - [156]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 17/04/2010 23:36:15
Originally by: Alynna Nechayev
You realize how stupid you are? a BM is just set of 3 stored values (probably double type): x y and z to denote coordinates in 3D environment.

Whether they are within system boundaries or not does not effect the game lag.

Ah... so you got a copy of the code too... That explains your knowledge Rolling Eyes

To rephrase your question: You realise how little you know about the game code?

In the other thread, it was conveyed that a CCP dev, on Sisi, had told what the real problem was. It was that when something was left in space, it created a grid which was stored in the database, AND SEARCHED EVERY TIME things like scans were done!
This included PERMANENT grids stored when players logged out of the game in space, even if they logged out a year ago! It is quite plausible that something like this is what CCP want to quell, because those extra stored grid creates lag.

You or Yaay have absolutely no idea about what you're talking about, and quite possibly I'm off the mark too.
That is the point however! The only people who know why this is being done is CCP, as they are the people with the code and experience. If they feel this is needed, it is!
Originally by: Alynna Nechayev
What Yaay refers to, is them being used to bridging fleets into system with 500 ppl already in it (without dying while your grid loads) - CCP consistently refused to address this issue on both threads.

I of.c. knows what he is referring to, and so will CCP.... That they choose to ignore this fact shows that there must be pretty important reasons why they want deep safes eliminated!

Both of you just whine away about something you haven't got a clue about. People like that are referred to as idiots...

Nikita Takeaway
T-Wrecks
Posted - 2010.04.17 23:36:00 - [157]
 

Just a couple of of questions.

Quoting from your new Devblog

"The move script will locate all items (physical objects including ships, cans and structures - anything you can collide with is an item) and bookmarks that are more than 20AU further from the sun than the furthest celestial. It will then move them towards the sun until they are exactly on the 20AU boundary for that system. No physical items will be deleted. No restrictions will be made on warping, module activation etc."

Using that explanation and the following scenario;

System X has a gate 100AU from the sun on the celestial plane. Your script will bring everything from the "Deepsafes" to a distance of 120AU from the sun. This includes BMs. Player Z created a Deepsafe 600AU out at 90degrees to the system plane. Following the script run his BM is now 120AU out still at a 90degree angle to the system plane.

Since no one else can use the "exploit" to create a similar 90degree safespot how does this "level the playing field going forward?"

Players without such repositioned BMs will be limited to making BMs that are created by warping from one celestial to another and dropping a BM along the path, then warping back to that dropped BM and warping to either another BM or a celestial and dropping another one. Regardless of how they do it all the BMs that can be created post "nerf" without using a repositioned BM will have one thing in common. Not a single one will be outside of the celestials in the system! Still leaves a "unfair" advantage to people who used the various methods and exploits to create those repositioned BMs in the first place.

I do have a suggestion to make that would actually level the playing field if that is truly of interest. Have your script programmer create a script that moves all objects to a location on the system plane within the boundaries of the celestials and then delete any BMs that are outside of the system plane.

This would truly "level" the playing field as no one would have BMs that are not within the limits of the system as defined by the celestials both on the system plane and the system verticals as many systems have celestials above or below the system plane.

Accepting that part of the reason for this "nerf" was to prevent Sov holder from anchoring TCUs at some ridiculous distance from the sun. That raises the question, if it is possible to limit the anchoring of POSes to moons, why not limit the anchoring of TCUs to the Sun?

Finally I have to ask that since CCP is interested in "level the playing field going forward" and I have an alt that does T2 BPC invention when does CCP plan on removing the T2 BPOs?

Jan Fjallrav
Posted - 2010.04.17 23:50:00 - [158]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
As mentioned in the previous reply, the issue is less range and more volume. A 150AU radius system has an "internal volume" of ~14m cubic AU (if my math is right). The 170AU sphere you get with the 20AU extension has a volume of ~20m cubic AU. If we punched that out to 50AU, it'd be ~33m. 20AU was a number we settled on as being "about right" in terms of not making it too constricted in small systems while also not making it excessively large in big systems.


Volume is of no importance if a system is flat, as is the case with most. Providing a means for arbitrary (if limited - I like the suggestion of the helioshock disrupting warp travel - even if it's sort of technobabbly) warp would make the whole of scannable space meaningful.

riverini
Gallente
Reliables Inc
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.04.18 00:47:00 - [159]
 

ATTENTION!!!!! RIVERINI IS GOING TO MAKE A POST!!!!

SOOO, IF BEING IN A DEEP SAFESPOT IS ONE WAY TO BE INVULNERABLE, THAT MEANS THAT INFINITE CLOAKING HAZ TO GO TOO RIGHT???
BECAUSE A CLOAKED SHIP IS BASICALLY INVULNERABLE TOO!!!!! RIGHT!!! UHHH!! RIGHT!!!!!????????????? Very HappySmileSadSurprisedShockedConfusedLaughingTwisted EvilRolling Eyes

CCP!!!! YOUR MOVE!!!

German Shrugs!!!
riverini. YARRRR!!

Punkt Landung
Posted - 2010.04.18 00:53:00 - [160]
 

Thanks for listening CCP, for not blowing up people's stuff (particularly any serving soldiers,sailors, airmen etc), for leaving deep space where it is and not impacting on Eve grand scale. I'm aware that there will continue to be concerns about this process but now that there is genuine discourse between all interested parties, I'm sure a workable compromise will be achieved.

Good luck with the expansion and taming the lag beast!!

BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.04.18 03:55:00 - [161]
 

Edited by: BeanBagKing on 18/04/2010 03:56:04
Originally by: Nikita Takeaway

Since no one else can use the "exploit" to create a similar 90degree safespot how does this "level the playing field going forward?"


It doesn't

Originally by: Nikita Takeaway

Finally I have to ask that since CCP is interested in "level the playing field going forward"


See above. CCP listened to reason in the last thread and is no longer interested in leveling the playing field, only cleaning up space. Life is harsh, unjust, and unfair. If I have been playing longer than you, then I have stuff you more than likely never will. There are those that have stuff I won't ever have, like the T2 BPO's.

Futhermore, the argument with T2 BPO's was that while you may never have some, you can buy them. Guess what, you can copy and buy/sell bookmarks too! So no, you may not be able to use the same "exploit" to create new ones, but if you really want them, I have some I'll sell you Razz

tldr - Life isn't fair, CCP fixed the majority of the issues with the last one (mainly just deleting stuff). New fix is better.

Htrag
The Carebear Stare
Hydroponic Zone
Posted - 2010.04.18 06:08:00 - [162]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
20AU was a number we settled on as being "about right" in terms of not making it too constricted in small systems while also not making it excessively large in big systems.


Honestly I think 100AU would be more appropriate.

FlameGlow
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2010.04.18 06:22:00 - [163]
 

This is better then the last one, though 20AU is still not that much and easily covered with combat probes, what are deepspace probes for then?
Make it 75-100AU, just out of reach of combat probes placed somewhere inside system

Nikita Takeaway
T-Wrecks
Posted - 2010.04.18 06:44:00 - [164]
 

Originally by: BeanBagKing
Edited by: BeanBagKing on 18/04/2010 03:56:04

See above. CCP listened to reason in the last thread and is no longer interested in leveling the playing field, only cleaning up space. Life is harsh, unjust, and unfair. If I have been playing longer than you, then I have stuff you more than likely never will. There are those that have stuff I won't ever have, like the T2 BPO's.

Futhermore, the argument with T2 BPO's was that while you may never have some, you can buy them. Guess what, you can copy and buy/sell bookmarks too! So no, you may not be able to use the same "exploit" to create new ones, but if you really want them, I have some I'll sell you Razz

tldr - Life isn't fair, CCP fixed the majority of the issues with the last one (mainly just deleting stuff). New fix is better.


I have plenty of out of system plane deepsafes of my own thanks. Just raising the point that CCP needs to drop the specious reasoning of "leveling the playing field", as this fix does not level it in any way, shape or form. The "Haves" still haz stuff that the "have-nots" don't.

As far as buying bookmarks goes I see a huge scam potential there.... time to give my trading alt all those random safespots in lowsec and nullsec I have. Yarrr! Let the buyer beware!

Nikita Takeaway
T-Wrecks
Posted - 2010.04.18 06:55:00 - [165]
 

Originally by: Punkt Landung
Thanks for listening CCP, for not blowing up people's stuff (particularly any serving soldiers,sailors, airmen etc), for leaving deep space where it is and not impacting on Eve grand scale. I'm aware that there will continue to be concerns about this process but now that there is genuine discourse between all interested parties, I'm sure a workable compromise will be achieved.

Good luck with the expansion and taming the lag beast!!


CCP won'T be blowing up your ships, players will, if you parked your mom/titan at a deepsafe and left it to sit there empty. You will be safe if your pilot is in it until you log in the next time. Any empty ships will be fairly easy to probe down in most systems as the fix will define the exact volume anything has to be within. I foresee some wicked KMs following the expansion. Oh, just remembered one of the other fixes coming with tyrannis is the insurance fix. IIRC the insurance value for titans and supercarriers is dropping to around 10% or so. HAPPY DAYS :)

Marchocias
Posted - 2010.04.18 09:18:00 - [166]
 

Edited by: Marchocias on 18/04/2010 09:23:08
You say the reason is to prevent sovereignty structures from being anchored out in deep space, making sovereignty difficult to challenge.

So why ditch deep safes? Why not make it possible to warp out that far, but not possible to anchor anything out that far, and only move the anchored objects inwards? This way, everyone still has their nice 0.0 fleet-lag work around, sovereignty structures are fixed, and people stop shouting at you very rudely.

Speaking of which... the "Haves-vs-Have-nots" reason is ABSOLUTE HORSECRAP. Eve is ALL about Haves-vs-Havenots. Tech 2 BPOs are a clear example where CCP has stated that they do not mind unfairness. In fact, deep safe spots CAN be given to another player without the original player losing anything, whereas T2 BPOs cannot be, therefore T2 bpos are a more obvious problem. So, do us a favour CCP, and don't insult our intelligence by trying to claim this is a reason; it simply isn't logical. By doing so you make yourselves, and your playerbase, look very foolish indeed.

So, er, get a grip on reality before allowing your devs to post any more devblogs of such spurious quality - it shouldn't be down to the playerbase to pick out such glaring faults in your plans.

Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.04.18 09:24:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: CCP Lemur
Yes, if you feel like burning your mwd for months to make a new bookmark you can do so. The space outside of the barrier which isn't a barrier is like any other space. Apart from there being nothing Smile


If this is the level of knowledge CCP is working off it's no wonder their first (and latest) ideas were so poorly thought out.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2010.04.18 12:18:00 - [168]
 

So, what happens if I create an off-plane deep safe that falls within the new limit, but is still a very long way from the nearest celestial? In some larger systems, that would still potentially be very hard to find.

Artemis Rose
Clandestine Vector
THE SPACE P0LICE
Posted - 2010.04.18 12:27:00 - [169]
 

Dear CCP.

Answer one question that won't make anybody in this thread cry, whine or mega moan.

How in hell did somebody create that 95K light year bookmark

Thanks. Cool

Grikath
T.E.L.O.G.S.
Mostly Clueless
Posted - 2010.04.18 12:40:00 - [170]
 

that's been answered before .... you used to be able to click on the Map and select "create bookmark" , some selective zooming would allow you to get quite far out.
I do wonder if someone has actually made the mistake of actually trying to warp to the thing though, and if he/she is still travelling into Oblivion... ;)


All the other Emotears are classic. CCP is Touching Your Stuffz, and Not Doing It The Way You Want To... [insert 5 yr old footstamping and Dramaqueening] Rolling Eyes

- The grid lag issue is irrelevant to this and is being worked on. Stop wanting it Nao!!

- The system lag issue due to load will always be a problem, given that overloading a system to cause lag is seen as a valid tactic in 0.0 blob warfare. FC's will try to fluff the numbers until a target system cracks, period.

- Deep Deep Saves are to be a thing of the Past. Live with it, and get creative. Stop bloody whingeing.

Sejanus Petreaus
Posted - 2010.04.18 13:37:00 - [171]
 

Originally by: Grikath

- The grid lag issue is irrelevant to this and is being worked on. Stop wanting it Nao!!

- The system lag issue due to load will always be a problem, given that overloading a system to cause lag is seen as a valid tactic in 0.0 blob warfare. FC's will try to fluff the numbers until a target system cracks, period.



I agree, asking for a game to work as intended is a little over the top, the devs are humans after all.

The fact that it worked decent pre-dominion patch has nothing to do with the complaining about the lag issueRolling Eyes

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.04.18 13:53:00 - [172]
 

Originally by: riverini
crap deleted


next time more smilies and exclamation marks.

Kallieah
World of EVEcraft
Posted - 2010.04.18 13:55:00 - [173]
 

I like the changes. Still allows some flexibility, though there isn't as much space out there as I'd like and if all the mechanisms to get to it are done away with, it'll make the universe feel a lot smaller, but at least peoples' ships won't be deleted. However, it does make hidden assets a lot more 'stealable' doesn't it? Twisted Evil

Alathus Christensen
Caldari
Blue Sun Enterprises
Blue Moon Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.18 14:52:00 - [174]
 

"Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O? Beyond that though, yes, we recognize that said probes have somewhat reduced utility after this change (although the range of situations that they were previously useful in was fairly limited already - one reason for making this change is that issues of spherical volumes quickly made finding things in deep safes exceptionally difficult/time-consuming from the off). We may find additional uses for the skill in future but we don't have development bandwidth right now to make any additional changes at this time."

TL;DR - If you took the time to train Astrometrics V (thank god I didn't..) - which is by no means a "short" skill. Sorry for your lots.

"...(Insert apparent lack of a response to players query regarding grid load issues in 0.0 warfare, thus ensuring that the best way to win a war is still to 'crash nodes'.)"

TL;DR - If you want to participate in 0.0 combat, and you're trying to do so with too many of your friends - again, sorry for your lots.

...Many of these changes don't even affect *me* as a player, and still I see a major need for some prioritization.

CCP - Fix the lag, listen to your player base, and prosper as a company. Without addressing the issues that your players raise - and allowing futility to prosper, you only insure the end-game failure of the product we all love.

TL;DR - We have a voice. Please, listen to it
.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.04.18 16:02:00 - [175]
 

Originally by: Marchocias

Speaking of which... the "Haves-vs-Have-nots" reason is ABSOLUTE HORSECRAP. Eve is ALL about Haves-vs-Havenots. Tech 2 BPOs are a clear example where CCP has stated that they do not mind unfairness.

What exactly did you have in mind that CCP do with those T2 BPO's? Destroy them, and deprive legitimate owners of property worth possibly hundreds of billions? (think T2 Hulk BPO, for example). Sure, indy corps possessing those have an advantage; it's just not the sort of thing you can take away easily. Watch how people (myself included) scream foul over CCP wilfully destroying propery at deepsafes. Now imagine what will happen if they start to destroy T2 BPO's; then multiply your estimation by two.

EdTeach
Posted - 2010.04.18 16:32:00 - [176]
 


I am still confused.

I saw the reply from the Dev that explained the volume as being the relevant variable for the 20AU decision.

Ummmm....

What volume???

There is at present no way to access any part of the volume that is not in between two warpable objects... which places all possible BMs in or very near the plane of the planetary orbits.

That makes for a small slice of a spherical volume, so your math is in error re: usable volume.

Without a game mechanic that allows warp access to every area of the allowed volume(see my suggestion in earlier post), this change does not seem to help anything.

If CCP is not going to allow WARP access to the full volume, then do not use that volume in your decision making process. It is intellectually dishonest/flawed thinking.

Either make probes warpable targets, or implement some way to get into the Z axis areas.


It doesn't matter what you do though, without a new way to park their caps, a lot of cap pilots will be losing their ships soon. I am aware that the items will no longer be destroyed, but there will be a massive "easter egg hunt" on patch day to get kills on parked ships from cap pilots on deployment averseas.

The week after the patch will be a great time for popcorn and watching the tears on the forums. Plus the extended line of tears when military types come home from deployment to find billions gone. It almost smells of a tactic to increase turnover. Get older players to emo rage quit, so the newer players won't feel so overwhelmed.

I see what CCP is trying to do in regards to deep safes, and it is a good intention. However, it needs a lot more thought and implementation time, which CCP is not going to give.

The line I saw re: some coder using "his" time to write the move script made my jaw drop. CCP priorities need adjustment if an employee has to devote private time to something that obviously means a lot to the customer base.

Stop adding content until you fix the content that is present.


BTW - This is just an academic exercise for me, as I have no items at risk, and you couldn't pay me to live in nul until the lag is fixed. If I see something that looks like a service provider is not doing their job properly, I still feel a need to comment.

Nikita Takeaway
T-Wrecks
Posted - 2010.04.18 17:43:00 - [177]
 

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
So, what happens if I create an off-plane deep safe that falls within the new limit, but is still a very long way from the nearest celestial? In some larger systems, that would still potentially be very hard to find.


Well I know folks doing exactly that making safespots at high angles to the system plane. The thought being that if the have a BM outside of the limit come deployment day, that BM wil now be at the system limit on the Z axis. Once again giving the "have" something the "havenots" do not.

Even though I have deepsafes that are outside of the 256AU range of a probe, I could care less if they delete them. I would just like CCP to stop giving specious reasons for the change. If CCP wants to do this because it has an impact on the database or the lag issue, FINE. If they want to do it because they just want to, also FINE. As it has been stated in both this thread and the original one, the level the playing field reason is bogus. If they choose to level it then there are better places to start. To really level the playing field delete everything everyone has, delete the characters and make everyone start over from scratch. Oh wait that won't work either because on deployment day +1 there will be people who are have-nots again so we would have to do it all over. I am planning on being online immediately after DT on deployment day with a covert and sisters deepspace probes searching all the lowsec and nullsec systems nearby for ships and items that are no longer way out in space.

Personally if I don't want to be found in game, I use a cloak or a ship setup in such a fashion that it cannot be probed. Usually a T3, that is much more enjoyable than a deepsafe. People can see the juicy T3 on the directional scanner and go nuts when they cannot get a probe it out after trying for 45+ minutes. T3s are by no means the only ships that can be setup this way either. MUCH more enjoyable, especially if you faction fit it and then link the fit in local and watch dozens of probes being deployed. All the while knowing that the probers are wasting their time.

On a final note seeing as I am a pirate, I will be online as soon as the servers return to service following deployment of Tyrannis to do 2 things.

1. Claim some planets to make the inhabitants slave for me.
2. Probing all the nearby lowsec and nullsec systems for the newly repositioned goodies.

YARRRRRR!!!!!YARRRR!!

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.18 19:50:00 - [178]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 18/04/2010 20:00:12
Originally by: Ranka Mei
What exactly did you have in mind that CCP do with those T2 BPO's? Destroy them, and deprive legitimate owners of property worth possibly hundreds of billions? (think T2 Hulk BPO, for example).

There are a couple of ways CCP could restrict T2 BPO's apart from simply removing them:
  • Make them into 1000-run BPC's for ships and more for modules/ammo. They'd still be good, but would die out eventually.
  • Raise the standard ME for invention BPC's to 0. BPO's would still have the advantage as they could be researched, but the big advantage they have in production price would be reduced.
  • Allow BPC's to be researched in some way (ME/PE). It shouldn't be very expensive, but should take time and require a research slot.
I'm not saying CCP should do any on this, just that they could.... I don't personally give very much of a damn since I don't think the BPO's make all that much difference except perhaps for command ships.

As for the last idea up there, I just had the thought that drones could be changed to drop materials enabling this research instead of minerals. You'd get a reduction in mineral production, and another complexity in the game. Complexities are good Cool

Punkt Landung
Posted - 2010.04.18 20:35:00 - [179]
 

T2 BPOs are off topic but if anyone reading this wants one - work an extra shift at ChickenShack and turn said dollars into many billions of isk through plex then buy a T2 BPO from the forums here.

If they are such an 'I-win button' why are they always for sale?

Seriously, even people with low paid jobs could buy one with 8 hours work - why do people see them as such a big deal?

DeODokktor
Caldari
Dark Templars
The Fonz Presidium
Posted - 2010.04.18 20:37:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Edited by: Kerfira on 18/04/2010 20:00:12
Originally by: Ranka Mei
What exactly did you have in mind that CCP do with those T2 BPO's? Destroy them, and deprive legitimate owners of property worth possibly hundreds of billions? (think T2 Hulk BPO, for example).

There are a couple of ways CCP could restrict T2 BPO's apart from simply removing them:
  • Make them into 1000-run BPC's for ships and more for modules/ammo. They'd still be good, but would die out eventually.
  • Raise the standard ME for invention BPC's to 0. BPO's would still have the advantage as they could be researched, but the big advantage they have in production price would be reduced.
  • Allow BPC's to be researched in some way (ME/PE). It shouldn't be very expensive, but should take time and require a research slot.
I'm not saying CCP should do any on this, just that they could.... I don't personally give very much of a damn since I don't think the BPO's make all that much difference except perhaps for command ships.

As for the last idea up there, I just had the thought that drones could be changed to drop materials enabling this research instead of minerals. You'd get a reduction in mineral production, and another complexity in the game. Complexities are good Cool



I think trying to compare the two is nothing that will yield any great results..
Even now, invention has some HUGE positives over bpo's. I have tech2 bpo's that are not profitable to produce with, and guess what, I cant ever sell any product because people invent and build. Invention has allowed a lot of people to get into production when they have little understanding of what the full cost is, sure they run agents, do mining, and have alliance members that sell them moon product at lower cost, but those players are not smart enough to know they could sell the minerals, coponets, datacores, and everything else for more profit than the tech2 product!... A good example is that you can have a Rhea for 40 mil!!!! over all of it's base cost.. 40 mil!!! for something that (on it's cheapest) takes about 4 weeks to build.

User numbers in eve are increasing, and seasond players quit the game. So as the userbase goes up, and some tech2 bpo's get put in storage (or, deleted/destroyed) then invention will see it's natural progression to be the only componet to building tech2. I own a lot of tech2 bpo's and understand the risk. I also know guys who make the same sort of income as me but by doing less overall production, and using invention!. Tech2 bpo's = unfair?... Nope...

Some markets cant cope with invention AND bpo's (those markets cant actually cope with EITHER invention or bpo's). Many people mix up dead markets with killed markets.
Most dead markets are not through player-driven events, they are through the items just being crap. I miss the days where only "Elite" players had tech2 stuff, and only the hardened rich guys had faction gear. As ccp makes this game easier (like they have just done with scanning!) then people just keep asking for more and more handouts.

When invention yields 500 runs with the worst decryptor, and has stats of +100/+100 at worst, then people will still moan ;)...


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (11)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only