Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:06:00 -
[631] - Quote
I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3061
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:08:00 -
[632] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you?
There's not a great deal they could do to fix it.
Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom.
T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:08:00 -
[633] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Entity wrote:So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?
I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated eight years was 7.9 too long Exactly. Yes, I do want those BPOs in space. This is EVE. There should be risk. I am staggered that such an old player thinks the current situation is in any way acceptable. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Oxide Ammar
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:09:00 -
[634] - Quote
Unless they make researching in POS super ******* fast I see no point of risking doing this in POS. They need like bump the mobile labs modfiers so ******* high to make it lucrative enough to do it. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:09:00 -
[635] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. T2 profits will crash with a better interface. Prices might not, depending on the slot fees, but profits will. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3450
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:11:00 -
[636] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Zifrian wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? It takes too long. Most of the time is spent waiting for the wardec to start. It is perfectly reasonable to give someone notice that you are going to attack their hi-sec assets. It is perfectly reasonable for them to respond. I doubt very much that any future mechanic would ever circumvent the wardec without replacing it with a similar notice period. So whatever timespan you are hoping for isn't very realistic. I'm very grateful to those that ask before wardec-ing. It saves them 50 million too.
I've once refunded the 50m to a corp that didn't ask first, but offered to end the war after the tower in question was onlined.
However, personally don't have a problem with towers becoming un-anchored, or even deleted, after 30 days offline. I state this despite that it would affect my own spare towers. |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:11:00 -
[637] - Quote
So in the DevBlog it's stated:
This creates some bottleneck gameplay, encouraging players to move around, use Starbases or just wait. We arenGÇÖt very satisfied with that, especially when we couple it with the ridiculously low NPC prices for installing jobs (that havenGÇÖt been changed since 2003).
Okay, we all see the bottleneck problem and most who've played the last couple of years realize that EVE has inflation issues, but this solution kills two entire sub-industries: BPO research for fee and BPC copying for fee. Wouldn't job cost scaling have done a better job of draining isk from the system without destroying established industrial ventures.
Slot removal does have another interesting consequence for Starbases; at the moment, most of the Starbases in high-security space use Mobile Laboratories to compensate for the lack of Material Efficiency Research slots in Empire space.
Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. Improve Mobile Laboratories and Assembly Arrays to compensate for such risk GÇô weGÇÖll give you final numbers as soon as we have them. This is a major nerf to every industrialist that invested in mobile labs. Lets face it, typical modules BPOs have a low enough cost that who cares if it get popped in a wardec. But the BPOs that really benefit from mobile labs: capital components, capital ships or even battleships, I just don't see anyone placing these in a mobile lab for research. But then neither do you. As you said, "(we) do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner..." Seems like some very poor reasoning was put into this argument. Is this the secret POS plan, nerf them to irrelevance so no one will care when you delete them in Winter 2015?
In turn, this allows us to change ...
Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course).
This is the death of several non-industry mini-professions:
mission runners who grind standings alliance/corp creation services corp standings boosters high-sec POS removal services (they might have a slight uptick at first, but I seriously doubt it will last) Additionally, this kills a major high point in many people's EVE career, the day you got you corp's standings high enough to plant your own POS without assistance -- the day you could say 'this moon is mine!' After this is implemented a day one noob will be able to plant a POS with Industrial Ship-1 and Anchoring-1. Not that they'll have a need for it as a POS won't be needed for indy after this goes live.
"So player corporations will now have the choice between the safety of NPC stations or the efficiency of Starbases to operate. The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked or be reactive enough to take the blueprints out before they go into reinforced mode."
I don't get it, you basically contradict yourself CCP. You want to create conflict over inexpensive blueprints? I just don't see how you'll be able to force industrialists to defend inexpensive blueprints, we're analytical cost analysis types. Anyone with half a brain working in indy will just write off the expense and charge it to the customers, assuming they get caught with BPOs in a POS to begin with. And again, as you said, "(we) do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner..."
|
Elene Shuiko
Karvanen Nalle Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:11:00 -
[638] - Quote
Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.
I hope I misunderstood something here, if you're going to make copy time lower than manufacturing time then the "requirement" for the print to be at the tower is completely pointless. All sensible builders are going to keep their BPOs at stations, not because of the risk but because they can build more that way. If you can get 10 copies within the same time period as you could manufacture 9 ships... it isn't really rocket science.
Removing the gimmick damage mechanic was nice but please don't replace it with another (running BPC's to the POS) if you want to run at full efficiency. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
356
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:12:00 -
[639] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:gifter Penken wrote:You continue to assert that any increase in T2 BPO production would just be "noise" in total production. Evidence indiacte there are some T2 items where BPO production accounts for 90+% of total production.. In those cases, even a modest increase in T2 BPO production woudl be MUCH MORE than just noise. Those items are so unpopular that demand is met mostly by T2 BPO production. Why would anyone want to build unpopular stuff? Let the T2 BPO owners have at it, as they've no other choice, unlike inventors. Indeed.
Don't want to make an invention profit? Compete with T2 BPO owners in weak markets for unused items that would yield little income even if T2 BPOs did not exist.
Want to make an invention profit? Work in strong markets where there is plenty of demand to go around and the price is set by inventors.
Want the advantages that T2 BPO owners have? Save up and buy one.
Don't want existing T2 BPO owners to have any advantages at all? Don't be so unreasonable. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:15:00 -
[640] - Quote
Kadl wrote: I think T2 BPOs just feel wrong to many newer players, and the perceptions and feelings cause the hate. The arguments showing a lack of advantage seem pretty clear to me. At this point the T2 BPOs have been purchased and are providing minor returns. Still they cause arguments and bad feelings. It seems like reducing their power slowly honors both the investment and the frustrated feelings.
I'd turn it around. I think T2 BPOs feel "right", and we should be able to invent them.
Why on New Eden do we have to reinvent the wheel after each and every time we build one?
Make it super hard, and super expensive, but with lots of time and effort, we too could become a T2 BPO holder.... And T2 proces would fall to the point that teh profit margin is so small, that no one would bother putting in the work and effort to invent additional T2 BPOs.
That way, we neither removed T2 BPOs, nor do we continue to have the hate and discontent that they cause newer players that can never get one from the lottery.
I saw an idea a few years back. Remove all loot drops. Make everything buildable by players.
Only meta 0 avaialble from NPC. You have to run an invention job (with data cores and lab costs) to try to invent a meta 0... say 16% success. Then on a mate 1, you have to run another invent job, with more data cores and more lab costs, and maybe 8% chance of success. Then you have to invent to get it to meta 3... 4% chance of success. 2% chance to get to meta 4. 1% chance to get to meta 5 (T2)
On average, to get a M0 BPO to: M1: 6 invent jobs M2: 18 invent jobs M3: 43 invent jobs M4: 93 invent jobs M5: ~200 invent jobs.
At 100K per invent job, 20B for a M5, on average.
The number of cores could vary by size, so that a small may cost 100K per invent, medium 200K and large 400K. That would raise the price of T2 BPO to almost 100B for a large item.
The number of "data anoms" could be adjusted to maintain datacore market price at the desired level to maintain the price of invention jobs. |
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:17:00 -
[641] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. Um... you mean that this point wasn't actually already on your list?
Hmm... supports the widely-held suspicion that the devs don't play in high-sec and don't spend time reading the non-PVP forums. This issue has been around for years and is always being brought up again and again. |
sci0gon
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
22
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:19:00 -
[642] - Quote
you guys are screwing industry to much but I don't mind seeing a nice bump on the prices of stuff in jita, more profit for me ^^
also can you give us info on build costs asap especially for those of us who do weekly to monthly builds on products or just move them to sisi already so I can look myself to find out without you guys being 3rd party to the data presented. |
Entaran
Assisted Recovery Solutions Northern Associates.
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:19:00 -
[643] - Quote
Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
As much as I'd like to support this change, I find it hard to understand how the dev team got this from the drawing board to implementation without any major hurdles. There are a number of inherent problems with this particular point (I am a huge supporter of the rest of the dev blog, including the reprocessing changes/swap to compressed ore etc).
First and foremost: The vast majority of major industrial operations are 1-3 man alt-corps. This change ENFORCES that because now you cannot lock down BPO's which can be worth ridiculous piles of isk with any level of security from corp thieves etc. And please don't start replying with "Use pos roles, setup your pos correctly etc". It takes almost no effort to get pos roles from a highsec corp and in many null/low you just have to be willing to help fuel them.
Secondly: You're adding yet another boring job to an already boring profession. Now we have to drag our bpo's from our station cans (audit cans now! more lag!) to the pos just to run a job and them drag them back again later when we pickup the produce.
Third: For major capital/supercapital operations you just changed the game (simplified it really). Now none of us will build at component arrays (effectively making them useless/worthless because nobody else uses them), we'll just spam out all the component at whatever station we work in... I see minmatar stations have unlimited manufacturing slots now... and we own them so we can set the prices. All we have to do is cart components from station to the CSAA (for a super) and start the job with a bpc?
Titan prints going up. Super prints staying the same because nobody builds supers from BPO's anyway. I hope Titan copy times come down to something reasonable (lol 4 months).
A simple alternative would've been to have the game consider the bpo to be "at the pos" when it's in use in production/research, so if the lab/array is destroyed it has a chance of dropping there or is otherwise destroyed. But remains "locked" in the station for safety at all other times. Probably easier to code too. |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:19:00 -
[644] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. T2 profits will crash with a better interface. Prices might not, depending on the slot fees, but profits will.
The problem isn't with the interface its the reduction in complexity...
T2 production should be more complex then T1 not just gated by skills. To be honest currently the skills aren't really even much of a gate into T2. Its the weeks of research and understanding the market and refine your production lines to make everything profitable. Remove the needs for POS's and remove then need for invention and now its just T1 manufacturing with more items.. that are nicely displayed for your convenience.
On the note of T2 BPO's does anyone actually think anyone will use them to produce anymore lol they're just going to be used to print isk in the form of T2 bpc's. Depending on how low they make copy times you could see the list of profitable Inventions be reduced even further then it is already. Couple this with making the system easier and i can see a lot of people dumping the idea of industry as a career, and more just another passive way to make isk. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:21:00 -
[645] - Quote
Elene Shuiko wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. I hope I misunderstood something here, if you're going to make copy time lower than manufacturing time then the "requirement" for the print to be at the tower is completely pointless. All sensible builders are going to keep their BPOs at stations, not because of the risk but because they can build more that way. If you can get 10 copies within the same time period as you could manufacture 9 ships... it isn't really rocket science. Removing the gimmick damage mechanic was nice but please don't replace it with another (running BPC's to the POS) if you want to run at full efficiency.
How much is it going to cost to make 10 copies in a station with over used lab services? |
Gargep Farrow
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:21:00 -
[646] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: I'm rather skeptical about how these changes will affect the overall game dynamics - I suspect that insufficient thought has gone into the domino effects that are likely to occur. I agree and can think of a domino or two that will come crashing down. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
357
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:22:00 -
[647] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Make it super hard, and super expensive, but with lots of time and effort, we too could become a T2 BPO holder.... That is the system we have now.
I have a small pile of T2 BPOs and I didn't get any of them from the lottery. I bought each of them with isk that I earned in one way or another. The system as it stands is good. The fact that some people don't like it, for reasons that are more often than not based in ignorance, isn't a good reason to change it. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:22:00 -
[648] - Quote
At long last my dreams are coming true. While many are going to be highly emotional about some of these changes they are necessary to make EVE a better game. I fully expect there to be some nasty surprises for other playstyles and areas of the game in this vision but it will be worth it if they are as well thought out as some of these changes.
Either this CSM is the most effective one there has ever been, or CCP's new hires are injecting very good ideas at last. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2600
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:27:00 -
[649] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race.
The reason that T1 manufacturing has such low profit margins is due to two factors:
1) The low investment of player time in the production process 2) The low investment of manufacturing slot time in the process.
Want to make 1000 units of Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1? Once you have a researched BPO, It takes 5 or 6 clicks (1 minute player time, 3 minutes if you need to place buy orders on the minerals), and ~100 production line hours.
The only way to make the process profitable (and I do not want to see this happen) is to make it either as player time intensive as T2 production (~15 clicks to build 10 units of EANM II) and/or as production line hour intensive as T2.
Not to mention T2 requires less skills than T1, not more. T1 margins are so low that you must have Material Efficiency 5 and very, very good trade skills and trade standings (which require PVE combat skills to earn efficiently). T2 just requires 4 level 1 skills to 5 (Science the only one a combat pilot wouldn't already have), a few datacore and trade skills to 3 and Material Efficiency to 4. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:28:00 -
[650] - Quote
Halia Thorak wrote: Its the weeks of research and understanding the market and refine your production lines to make everything profitable. Remove the needs for POS's and remove then need for invention and now its just T1 manufacturing with more items.. that are nicely displayed for your convenience. .
So, it is only profitable because it is stupidly cumbersome to figure out? 2 spreadsheets = no profits. 20 spread sheets = profits... so we need it to take 20 spreadsheets.
Hmmmm... And I thought a game was supposed to be fun, not work. Silly me. |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:31:00 -
[651] - Quote
Halia Thorak wrote:Zappity wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. T2 profits will crash with a better interface. Prices might not, depending on the slot fees, but profits will. The problem isn't with the interface its the reduction in complexity... T2 production should be more complex then T1 not just gated by skills. To be honest currently the skills aren't really even much of a gate into T2. Its the weeks of research and understanding the market and refine your production lines to make everything profitable. Remove the needs for POS's and remove then need for invention and now its just T1 manufacturing with more items.. that are nicely displayed for your convenience. On the note of T2 BPO's does anyone actually think anyone will use them to produce anymore lol they're just going to be used to print isk in the form of T2 bpc's. Depending on how low they make copy times you could see the list of profitable Inventions be reduced even further then it is already. Couple this with making the system easier and i can see a lot of people dumping the idea of industry as a career, and more just another passive way to make isk. I agree with what you are saying about complexity. It should be harder to efficiently produce T2.
But the current interface is such a dog that I believe it is a bottleneck of its own. I have five characters capable of T2 production. I can rarely endure the clicks long enough to cycle through them all. Certainly not every day. But if it weresl simpler I would easily double my T2 production. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:32:00 -
[652] - Quote
First up I have only read the Blue Responses in this thread, and not all 31 pages of comments, so sorry if this has been mentioned.
Given that there are 3 more Blogs to come there is allot of speculation. Based off the first one I Thought that they were mostly good changes, to my knowledge there is still a query over the retention of BPO for Compression and the new(converted) Compression array, I hope that the BPOs are retained and are required in the new arrays.
Now for comments on the Second one: Cleaning of the market groups = Good Change - Never really noticed it before but the icon for the Outpost components/improvement platforms looks a little out of place, as it has a background on the icons, most other icons have transparent backgrounds.
Stopping the Damage = Good Change - other the chance that this could overload arrays with the sudden 100 times volume increase, no real issues in this one. - Also just confirming that the existing R.A.M. BPOs output is also increasing by a factor of 100
Extra Materials = Good Change - just need to confirm that the various Cargo Container BPOs will now actually take ME into account? as currently they are 100% Extra materials. - Noticed that in the Screenshots that -- the name of the Bill of materials is changing to Industry? this is weird change. -- There are some weird arse icons instead of nice easy to read tabs? I think this is backwards step, the icons also take up more room than the previous tabs did
Ok the Slots change = Holding judgement based on future devblogs But off what is already there hears some speculation Concept is probably fine for replacing slots with increasing costs, but as to how quickly that scales will be interesting. Costs being based off the item being produced, does this mean that the time for production is no longer a factor? or that the new cost is the new base install cost?
Structure changes/Supply chain management/Scientific Networking - I can see that BPOs owned by corporations are now going to be stored in the cheapest location for copying most likely. I've been in a few corps that have run the following setup, Corp BPO Library in a Station, with members having query access and only the Directors/CEO having Take access to that Hangar. members are then able to research/manufacture from those corp owned BPOs to either that station or to the corp POS/s in system. However with this station, I can't see Directors/CEO moving BPOs for every member that wants to use the BPO in the POS. So members instead of just straight using the BPOs will now have to Copy the BPO and then take the output BPC to the POS to be able to manufacture from it.
Quote:Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements I'm sorry but this is just a plain step backwards, and frankly makes NO sense. It was bad enough when you didn't have standings requirements when you introduced POCO control to HS
Industry UI change.... Looks allot more graphical and Larger, hopefully none of the information is lost. I can see that there is a manufacturing job on screen, but I can't tell if there are any missing minerals or what minerals are in use.
Please remember for future changes that increasing the number of icons in place of easily readable text is not always a good thing.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:34:00 -
[653] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom.. The bottom for T1 modules is obviously not where you think it is.
The current manufacturing costs of most T1 modules are higher than the market price of meta versions of the module, due to the large supply of metas from NPC drops. So, who would buy/use a T1 module for a ship fit, when a better meta module is always available *and* cheaper? No demand means no reason to build.
Also, meta module prices are lower-bounded by their mineral reprocessing value. So, when the changes to reprocessing kick in, the prices of most of the meta modules are also going to drop rather precipitously.
For the most part, the only reason to build most T1 modules currently is for use in building T2 modules.
Don't just look at the proposed changes from a vet POV. Try looking at the game from a noob industry player wanna-be POV, and ask what should they be looking to build, besides T1 ammo? |
Elene Shuiko
Karvanen Nalle Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:35:00 -
[654] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Elene Shuiko wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. I hope I misunderstood something here, if you're going to make copy time lower than manufacturing time then the "requirement" for the print to be at the tower is completely pointless. All sensible builders are going to keep their BPOs at stations, not because of the risk but because they can build more that way. If you can get 10 copies within the same time period as you could manufacture 9 ships... it isn't really rocket science. Removing the gimmick damage mechanic was nice but please don't replace it with another (running BPC's to the POS) if you want to run at full efficiency. How much is it going to cost to make 10 copies in a station with over used lab services? Then again, you will also do this at your own POS, print copies in your free lab (with speed boost even) and yield EVEN more copies per hour/day compared to straight manufacturing. Copy time just needs to be above manufacturing time or else it will give us a new gimmick mechanic. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2666
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:35:00 -
[655] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Or...as the next 4 dev blogs will reveal, this is just the first step in eviscerating high sec industry and null sec industry will be given even MORE advantages that make it impossible to run either a casual high sec indy corp or a large scale dedicated industrial corp.
I am not known to be a strenuous (sov) null sec supremacy "because it's Good" supporter. But give CCP some slack please. The potential nerf to Supercaps Online(tm) is sublime and hi sec was a TERRIBLE mechanic to begin with, seeing it slowly phased out imo is a good idea, as long as there are new mechanics to allow the individuals to still afford playing this game. Think about this: in the vituperated WoW, you are statistically LESS safe against ganking than in EvE's hi sec. EvE is marketed as cold, harsh universe, if CCP makes it really so, they are just delivering what they have written on the tin.
CCP, some slack???
First off, I fail to see how this is a huge nerf to Supercaps Online. A POS with BPO's in it has still less risk of being hit than a tower with a CSAA, since a CSAA is a beacon. And we all know that supercap mfg towers are seldom hit, though it does happen. goons don't even ALLOW their renters to make supercaps, and the goons have their industrial might buried deep in very safe enclaves. Further, dev's have promised significant cuts to copying times. Depending on how big a buff, it could ensure making supercaps is easier.
Don't compare Eve to Wow. You know better than that.
And as for making Eve a cold harsh place, it is there already. These changes, along with the subsequent blogs, are targeted at wrecking high sec industry. If the CSM's goal with these changes was to reduce the amount of casual players subscribing to the game, they certainly have achieved it. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:35:00 -
[656] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. The reason that T1 manufacturing has such low profit margins is due to two factors: 1) The low investment of player time in the production process 2) The low investment of manufacturing slot time in the process. Want to make 1000 units of Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1? Once you have a researched BPO, It takes 5 or 6 clicks (1 minute player time, 3 minutes if you need to place buy orders on the minerals), and ~100 production line hours. The only way to make the process profitable (and I do not want to see this happen) is to make it either as player time intensive as T2 production (~15 clicks to build 10 units of EANM II) and/or as production line hour intensive as T2. Not to mention T2 requires less skills than T1, not more. T1 margins are so low that you must have Material Efficiency 5 and very, very good trade skills and trade standings (which require PVE combat skills to earn efficiently). T2 just requires 4 level 1 skills to 5 (Science the only one a combat pilot wouldn't already have), a few datacore and trade skills to 3 and Material Efficiency to 4.
I would disagree with all this.
The reason T1 production is so profitless is because 95% of M4 and below that gets used is rat drop. What are we left to manufacture? Ships, rigs, ammo and the few other items that rats don't drop (or not in sufficient quantities)?
I say, remove ALL rat drops below M5, and make ALL meta 1-5 items be manufactured by players. Heck, even remove the dead space and officer drops and replace them with BPCs that have to be built.
If we're going to fix manufacturing, let's really fix manufacturing, ESPECIALLY the fact that rat drops are better than the T1 we can build! |
sci0gon
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
23
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:36:00 -
[657] - Quote
ccp confirmation required.
when this change goes live will the bpos that were in the middle of production at the time be relocated to any pos mods that the production was started in or will it continue to export back to its locked down status in the station?
also is there the possibility that you guys may complete all build jobs on the server to free up the bpos so that the players can have peace of mind during the update that they are safely in the station and will have to decide after that whether or not they wish to continue to build in a pos or stick to station building?
also will there be any other purpose to high standings than what is in the game currently? |
Lfod Shi
Lfod's Ratting and Salvage
192
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:38:00 -
[658] - Quote
Well, huh. I... geeze. Um... right, there we have it. ...end transmission... GÖ¬ They'll always be bloodclaws to me GÖ½ |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2602
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:40:00 -
[659] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. The reason that T1 manufacturing has such low profit margins is due to two factors: 1) The low investment of player time in the production process 2) The low investment of manufacturing slot time in the process. Want to make 1000 units of Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1? Once you have a researched BPO, It takes 5 or 6 clicks (1 minute player time, 3 minutes if you need to place buy orders on the minerals), and ~100 production line hours. The only way to make the process profitable (and I do not want to see this happen) is to make it either as player time intensive as T2 production (~15 clicks to build 10 units of EANM II) and/or as production line hour intensive as T2. Not to mention T2 requires less skills than T1, not more. T1 margins are so low that you must have Material Efficiency 5 and very, very good trade skills and trade standings (which require PVE combat skills to earn efficiently). T2 just requires 4 level 1 skills to 5 (Science the only one a combat pilot wouldn't already have), a few datacore and trade skills to 3 and Material Efficiency to 4. I would disagree with all this. The reason T1 production is so profitless is because 95% of M4 and below that gets used is rat drop. What are we left to manufacture? Ships, rigs, ammo and the few other items that rats don't drop (or not in sufficient quantities)? I say, remove ALL rat drops below M5, and make ALL meta 1-5 items be manufactured by players. Heck, even remove the dead space and officer drops and replace them with BPCs that have to be built. If we're going to fix manufacturing, let's really fix manufacturing, ESPECIALLY the fact that rat drops are better than the T1 we can build!
You are aware that there are modules with no rat-dropped meta versions (Drone Damage Amplifiers in particular, Bastion Module too) where the exact same applies? And ammunition. Don't get started on the newbie trap that is building T1 ammo.
Rat drops being useful for something is good for the game. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
554
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:41:00 -
[660] - Quote
CCP has lost their f'n mind. CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |