Mine are always full. Why do Factory and Reverse Engineering get several extensions to expand capacity but Prototyping only gets one?

i agree. watching this game die is just sad but i also have a feeling the devs arent listening to the community (of what its left at least)

The point to that comment is how do feel being no scoped from across the map?  It's infuriating.  People don't like losing.  No one does.  So in asset acquisition mmos that require you to grind first to Pvp, players are hesitant to lose something.  Mroq, PHM alone has 10k+ bots in Corp storage.  We still produce more daily.  Why?  Because we know what a REAL war looks like.  And we know what it looks like to lose the war.  Which is why some fights are better left to blue balling.  Pvp isn't fair.  I don't care how bad *** 5 players are if the enemy has 20.  The enemy has a 99% chance of winning the engagement.  So why waste the time it took you build that bot to loose it?  Fun?  It's not fun loosing a fleet engagement.  It's usually demoralizing. 

And another tidbit:  if you'd stop going after blue stations you won't get much trouble out of bebg&t.  It's when the Nth server coalition shows up to Dom people start getting fired up.

logicalNegation wrote:

I say make gen chat required so there is no illusion about it, but of course then the intel game of who is on and who isn't is eliminated. I know its a common pvp tactic but let's be honest, we all see them coming anyway, nothing is a surprise anymore.

If it helps new players find a community to be a part of, and stick around, then it should happen.
What do you guys think?

Do Not Want. Gives away spies far to easily =)

I also hate flashing windows. Call it OCD - I feel compelled to click on them.

Pretty much every time you see someone whining on the forums about Beta, take a peek in-game and check the following was true in the past month;
a) When they owned it, it was great
b) When they lost it, it was bad
c) When they couldn't get it back, its terrible change the game boohoo.

Then ignore that feedback. Seriously I'm not kidding. Too much damage has already been done by 2-3 emotional wrecks spilling their frustrations into the forums with batsh*tstupid ideas.

P.P.S.

This message is dedicated to The Poodle, long may he bark.

Jita wrote:

Crepitus wrote:

You're wildly inconsistent. Even though we disagree about the magnitude here, you're saying a further mission nerf doesn't matter after asking for payouts to be increased for weeks. Even at the level you're talking about that effectively negates 3 levels of EP skill bonus for mission specific extensions. You also didn't answer the question. Nor have the devs.

Anni quite adequately answered your question so I don't think anyone else needs to - without it industrial mechs have no role. And its hardly a nerf, you talked about  20% industry nerf which is patently ridiculous. Most industrial stuff is done standing still such as mining and harvesting. You perhaps had harvesting missions in mind but 6 isn't 20 and that's one very small part of the wider picture.

Harvesting missions are actually better nic than any other mission for a one character player so arguably a nerf isn't a bad thing even if I believe mission income as a whole could do with a boost.

I'm not inconsistent, balance is a nuanced game aspect and this change had some great positives with some minor negatives. Yet here you are with your bolds and reds and long winded attack posts on the Devs for one of the few minor changes that makes total sense. That's why your post is bad, your statements about balance are idiotic and you don't have a clue - you should stop posting and listen to people like Syndic and Ville who actually post changes of value some of the time.

Anni's post is about further specialization - which I also disagree with - playing with fits is one of the few remaining entertainment aspects (this is supposed to be fun after all, right?). There is nothing nuanced about a flat nerf to multiple bot types. The rest are your opinions, you go on to defend your inconsistency. Nor does it show why buffing the underprivileged would have some how been worse for the game than nerfing the unintended.

The onus to prove why indy speeds needed to be nerfed too should have been on the devs who have given no explanation. Sweeping changes should be extensively tested, put to a vote restricted to active players before being blindly implemented.

Unlike you, I talk to the people you cite. Ville doesn't think the server can handle an assault/light bot speed increase. That might be, but balance changes shouldn't be made for hardware/bandwidth limitations, especially without real discussion. I guess it doesn't really matter since there are ~20 people playing. I'm bored at work so why not argue? QQ got the *** changes put in the game, maybe it can get them removed.

Jita wrote:

Crepitus wrote:

All missions are mostly travel time. All other activities have substantial travel time components. That you pretend this isn't a thing is *** pathetic and self serving; as always.

Buffing assault/light speed would have had the same effect as far as combat balance goes. Why is it always nerfs?

Tell me how nerfing industrial speed was needed *at all*?

Maybe we do missions differently but when I do harvesting missions I'm moving maybe 30% of the time max which would be a 6% nerf. Combat missions you move more but now that they are very easy if your not doing squad missions (and who does) you can easily use a mk2 mech and not have any reduction in efficiency.

The sky isn't falling, dry your eyes.

You're wildly inconsistent. Even though we disagree about the magnitude here, you're saying a further mission nerf doesn't matter after asking for payouts to be increased for weeks. Even at the level you're talking about that effectively negates 3 levels of EP skill bonus for mission specific extensions. You also didn't answer the question. Nor have the devs.