Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Chesticular Homicide
Boundless Invention
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:40:00 -
[31] - Quote
Entity wrote:Again, a lot of people, including me, bought a faction tower to save fuel cost, which is not insignificant. Removing that makes the investment pointless if all it does is give more time between refuels, which with this change would be of questionable value since it will be much easier.
This is the only reason I bought a faction tower is the reduced fuel costs. Nerfing the fuel bonus makes it pointless to even run a faction tower.
Considering their cost (over 2b for a DG large now), the value of a faction tower in hisec is now pointless.
This is a huge nerf for faction towers. |
Pavee Lackeen
Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:41:00 -
[32] - Quote
So basically you are just adding another step in the fueling process while removing some bonuses?
Doesn't seem like anything was gaining and the drudgery increases. |
Raziphan Rebular
Crypsus Tetsuo Shio
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:41:00 -
[33] - Quote
xp3ll3d wrote:They're dropping the isotope requirements? A direct effect of the goonswarm war against Ice miners?
Isotope requirement is still there for each block. 400x of racial isotope per block. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:41:00 -
[34] - Quote
You're really determined to make a lot of people happy in this patch aren't you? |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
i hate your homogenous forceful solution to this stuff.
you could of made fuel blocks do everything the PI mats do and left the ice parts just the way they are and some folks would of still benefited from the way the consumption formula's worked on HW and LO. but, now everyone has to use the same amount of ice no matter. what
its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips? |
Dartonias Sirion
KINGS OF EDEN Sev3rance
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:43:00 -
[36] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:A few questions:
1) What happens to the sov bonus to fuel use? This is a crucial point -- and is currently a huge factor that lets null-sec be profitable vs. their low sec POS operations counterpart.
Entity wrote:The benefit of faction towers is two-fold: - Longer run time before refuel - Lower cost per period
You're basically removing the cost benefit.
Better solution: Instead of producing 4 fuel blocks per batch, produce like 100 or some other larger quantity per batch (and obviously make the volume per block lower and the blocks consumed/cycle higher). then you can apply fuel reduction bonuses as per usual and everyone will be happy.
Again, a lot of people, including me, bought a faction tower to save fuel cost, which is not insignificant. Removing that makes the investment pointless if all it does is give more time between refuels, which with this change would be of questionable value since it will be much easier. I agree this would be a much better solution that allows the change to faction towers / sov fuel bonus to be properly propagated through. |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:43:00 -
[37] - Quote
Very nice changes. Might be a stupid question, but how exactly will jump bridge access be controlled now? Will it be purely through standings? And will we be able to set the level of standings at which jump bridge access is granted?
Basing it purely on control tower aggression settings may not be the best idea, because it may not allow for sufficient level of control. For example, an alliance will probably have its POS network configured to not shoot dark and light blues, but may not want light blues to use its bridge network. |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:43:00 -
[38] - Quote
Morn Hyland wrote:Could you extend the time between fuel cell usage to give bonuses for faction towers and sovereignty i.e. normal tower usage every 60 minutes - faction tower 75 minutes or whatever factor currently separates the fuel usage.
Nice suggestion, but they can't easily do that. The POS system is pretty much locked to 1-hour cycles. Reworking it for arbitrary cycle length would not be trivial. GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? | [topic=6504]EVE API?[/topic] | [topic=6501]Cache?[/topic] |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:44:00 -
[39] - Quote
Would it be possible for each class of faction starbase to have it's own faction fuel block? It could have a reduced cost and (potentially) a benefit for running the tower on that class of fuel.
With this change, you don't need to worry about having thousands of fuel blocks in a starbase to allow for partial consumption, but the faction towers don't lose their consumption bonuses.
The easiest bonus would be for the same ingredients, the faction block print produces 5 blocks. |
Friedward Schnorch
Catastrophic Failures
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:44:00 -
[40] - Quote
2 questions.
"We reduced effective robotics consumption on medium and small towers because it was judged to be better than increasing the consumption on large towers"
You actually doubled the consumption for medium and quadrupled it for large towers. Currently all towers just use 1 robotics, no matter which size.
And will faction towers be available again? I might be wrong, but AFAIK they were removed them from loot tables about 2-3 years ago. |
|
Kithran
Curaursi United Corporate Futures
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:46:00 -
[41] - Quote
I think a lot of people are going to be happy with the patch but not those who fuel towers - they now have to build stuff and the amounts needed have just gone through a roof:
1 Large POS with individual fuels/with pellets for one hour
Enriched Uranium 4/16 Oxygen 25/80 Mechanical Parts 5/16 Coolant 8/32 Robotics 1/4 Isotopes 450/2000 Liquid Ozone 150/600 Heavy Water 150/600
It looks to me that someone has mucked up their figures - they seem to have used the 1 hour fuel consumption of a large tower to work out the cost of a fuel pellet and then said that fuel pellet will be used to fuel a small pos for 1 hour, net result four times the current amount of fuel is needed!
I think the numbers for the pellets need to be re-worked so that the fuel consumption for a _small_ pos is used as the basis for the build cost of a single pellet.
Kithran
Mea culpa, had missed the bit saying the pellets were built in sets of four at whcich point numbers are about the same, oxygen down slighly, mech parts down slighly, isotopes up slightly |
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:46:00 -
[42] - Quote
Nice Devblog, but you should really do something about the Faction Towers.
Either just split the Blocks into smaller ones that allow fuel scaling, or, even better, reseed Faction Towers. If the prices get back to a resonable level the longer runtimes will be good enough and more people will actually benefit from those towers than the few ones that have them now. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:47:00 -
[43] - Quote
Friedward Schnorch wrote:2 questions.
"We reduced effective robotics consumption on medium and small towers because it was judged to be better than increasing the consumption on large towers"
You actually doubled the consumption for medium and quadrupled it for large towers. Currently all towers just use 1 robotics, no matter which size.
And will faction towers be available again? I might be wrong, but AFAIK they were removed them from loot tables about 2-3 years ago.
Read the blog again. You get 4 blocks for 1 robotics. Therefore, medium towers use 1/2 a robotics per hour and smalls use 1/4 a robotics per hour. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
83
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:47:00 -
[44] - Quote
Friedward Schnorch wrote: "We reduced effective robotics consumption on medium and small towers because it was judged to be better than increasing the consumption on large towers"
You actually doubled the consumption for medium and quadrupled it for large towers. Currently all towers just use 1 robotics, no matter which size.
Those material requirements are for a batch of 4 fuel blocks. So a small tower will use 0.25 robotics/hour and a medium 0.5 robotics/hour. |
Crexa
Star Mandate Property Management Solutions
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:47:00 -
[45] - Quote
All I can say is Energon Cubes anyone? Perhaps a shape change, or color. Perhaps a pellet shape, as many have perceived them as anyway.
Like the timer changes, not sure about the fuel change (seems a little on the dumbing down side of things).
Really really really do NOT like what you are proposing for faction towers! Don't know who you talked to, but they were smoking something or you mis-understood. The value is in cost savings!! Not in time. If you fuel dozens of pos, whats a couple more? |
TheButcherPete
StoneWall Metals Productions Bloodbound.
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:48:00 -
[46] - Quote
WOOT! This just made my life so much easier :D
GÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑ CCP |
MajorScrewup
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:49:00 -
[47] - Quote
Jason Edwards wrote:Quote:Turrets, launchers, EW batteries and hardeners now take 5 seconds to anchor/unanchor and 120 seconds to online/offline Onlining new guns as old ones get disabled... now super easy. Kinda makes it pointless to disable guns even if there are no more offline ones waiting because they could anchor new ones in 5 seconds.
Well you still have to come out of a pos forcefield to put ammo in the weapons to make them useful, so doesn't give much advantage during a pos shoot. |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
218
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:49:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP GingerDude wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Agree, let's do exactly this. Why, yes, lets. Maybe not absolutely right now today now, but... yes!
This feels like a trap, but I am taking it on face value anyway and be happy about a real, straightforward, meaningful answer, it has a soon in it, but then again, if it didn't it wouldn't be CCP :) - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:50:00 -
[49] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:A few questions:
1) What happens to the sov bonus to fuel use?
2) What's the manufacture time on the blocks? - Answered in the devblog, sorry - 10 minutes.
3) I'm guessing assembling fuel into blocks, inside the fuel bays, over the deployment DT is too complex? That would be a better solution for players.
As it stands currently, you'll get the bonus on large towers but nothing on medium/small due to :math:. Still thinking about that one though
3) is technically feasible but raises the technical risk sufficiently that it'd have pushed the whole thing back to a nebulous "later release" (again), so we skipped it.
Alice Katsuko wrote:Very nice changes. Might be a stupid question, but how exactly will jump bridge access be controlled now? Will it be purely through standings? And will we be able to set the level of standings at which jump bridge access is granted?
Basing it purely on control tower aggression settings may not be the best idea, because it may not allow for sufficient level of control. For example, an alliance will probably have its POS network configured to not shoot dark and light blues, but may not want light blues to use its bridge network.
Purely on aggro settings, yes. If the tower won't shoot you, you can use the bridge. The CSM was very clear that JB passwords are all public knowledge already so it's a pretty meaningless security check in practice.
Friedward Schnorch wrote:2 questions.
"We reduced effective robotics consumption on medium and small towers because it was judged to be better than increasing the consumption on large towers"
You actually doubled the consumption for medium and quadrupled it for large towers. Currently all towers just use 1 robotics, no matter which size.
1 robotics makes 4 fuel blocks, so large towers use 1/hour (4 blocks), mediums use 0.5 (2 blocks) and smalls use 0.25 (1 block). |
|
MajorScrewup
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
Also that dev blog could have bee worded a lot better |
|
Romandra
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:51:00 -
[51] - Quote
Kithran wrote:I think a lot of people are going to be happy with the patch but not those who fuel towers - they now have to build stuff and the amounts needed have just gone through a roof:
1 Large POS with individual fuels/with pellets for one hour
Enriched Uranium 4/16 Oxygen 25/80 Mechanical Parts 5/16 Coolant 8/32 Robotics 1/4 Isotopes 450/2000 Liquid Ozone 150/600 Heavy Water 150/600
It looks to me that someone has mucked up their figures - they seem to have used the 1 hour fuel consumption of a large tower to work out the cost of a fuel pellet and then said that fuel pellet will be used to fuel a small pos for 1 hour, net result four times the current amount of fuel is needed!
I think the numbers for the pellets need to be re-worked so that the fuel consumption for a _small_ pos is used as the basis for the build cost of a single pellet.
Kithran
Wrong. I thought the same but:
The base parts needed are to build a batch of FOUR BLOCKS. Ergo, it's actually a bit of a fuel cost REDUCTION.
However, I believe it's incredibly dumb to nerf faction POS fuel consumptions, as it's the only reason I use them. It would also be nice to find out about sov bonus.
The ideas in this thread - increase blocks/hour uses by a factor of 10, or increasing the time each block lasts on a faction tower/player sov tower, either method would work great.
|
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
156
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:52:00 -
[52] - Quote
HOLY **** CCP!!!
Thanks guys!!
As to Faction towers can you make their fuel cycle 1.5 hours or something to still give a fuel bonus? maybe 1 hr 10 mins?
I don't use them, but just thought I'd toss out the idea.
I love that CCP is removing UN-NEEDED COMPLEXITY!!
The game is getting richer, thanks! Imagine playing Donkey Kong where every barrel looks like it hits you. Would you rather I fix the barrels or Kong's shadow?
Welcome to Eve Online where lasers are dumber than barrels! |
Marbin Drakon
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:53:00 -
[53] - Quote
You mean I won't have to spend 30m - 1 hour onlining my drug reactions every time I need to make Exile / Mindflood instead of Drop?
I'm liking this part. |
Jackeroo
Operations Control United Pod Service
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:53:00 -
[54] - Quote
Entity wrote:
The benefit of faction towers is two-fold: - Longer run time before refuel - Lower cost per period
You're basically removing the cost benefit.
Better solution: Instead of producing 4 fuel blocks per batch, produce like 100 or some other larger quantity per batch (and obviously make the volume per block lower and the blocks consumed/cycle higher). then you can apply fuel reduction bonuses as per usual and everyone will be happy.
Again, a lot of people, including me, bought a faction tower to save fuel cost, which is not insignificant. Removing that makes the investment pointless if all it does is give more time between refuels, which with this change would be of questionable value since it will be much easier.
Right!
CCP, don't understand why it is so important (or you think easy) to have 1-2-4 fuel cubes per hour. It's no more complex if you take 10-20-40 or something like this and apply the current bonus. What would happen if we had only 1, 2 and 4 euro /doller coins in real life cause it makes things easy, uh? ...
|
Desmont McCallock
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:53:00 -
[55] - Quote
Entity wrote:Morn Hyland wrote:Could you extend the time between fuel cell usage to give bonuses for faction towers and sovereignty i.e. normal tower usage every 60 minutes - faction tower 75 minutes or whatever factor currently separates the fuel usage. Nice suggestion, but they can't easily do that. The POS system is pretty much locked to 1-hour cycles. Reworking it for arbitrary cycle length would not be trivial.
This was my first thought but as NTT pointed out impossible to implement.
Callic Veratar wrote:Would it be possible for each class of faction starbase to have it's own faction fuel block? It could have a reduced cost and (potentially) a benefit for running the tower on that class of fuel.
With this change, you don't need to worry about having thousands of fuel blocks in a starbase to allow for partial consumption, but the faction towers don't lose their consumption bonuses.
The easiest bonus would be for the same ingredients, the faction block print produces 5 blocks.
This was my second thought and I support this solution. |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:53:00 -
[56] - Quote
Quote:The way we're strongly advising players to approach this handover is to fill your fuel bays with "half and half"
Are you ******* insane? You just dropped the tcu for the sov change can't you just convert what they have to blocks. |
Jenn Makanen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:53:00 -
[57] - Quote
Any waste factor on the blueprints? PE still going to affect them? |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:55:00 -
[58] - Quote
this is brilliant news and my CEO is going to be very happy with the reduced onlining times and new fuel system
|
Iece Quaan
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:55:00 -
[59] - Quote
Not showing my work, but the inputs for a fuel block come out to 217.6 m3 volume. The output ( 4 blocks @ 50 ) is 200 m3, which would make it a compression ( but not much of one ).
Now, is that for a me0 bpo? With no skills? Cause I'm wondering if researching the bpo for ME, and having high PE, makes it so that you're expanding the inputs in terms of volume, rather than compressing.
It would be nice if it stayed a compression at all ME/PE skill levels. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:56:00 -
[60] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:GÇóWe didn't do this ages ago because I couldn't see a good way to handle the handover until someone pointed out the (obvious) half-and-half solution, at which point I punched myself in the head for not seeing that earlier You mean until you actually asked someone else rather than torturing your mind?
Would you mind me saying that the very same approach might lead to further solutions, which are likely to remedy issues you personally have always considered as unrealizable? 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |