Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 40 post(s) |
Erika Mizune
The Soul Society Brothers of Tangra
13
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 18:51:00 -
[121] - Quote
Well it is nice to see Indy get some love, and some of the changes I am happy about, and I know I will be taking advantage of the high-sec pos usage for my alt's single-man corp. I'm not sure about the remote usage with bp's however and I'm a bit worried how all these changes are going to effect the indy corps out there. I like having all the BP's in one centralized location too, lol.
DJ Yumene of Eve Radio Like Music? Check this out!: Parody Listing: http://yumene.subspace-radio.net/listing Also check out [url]http://www.eve-radio.com/[/url]! |
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 22:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: 0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.
This is yet another clear example of PL favouritism from CCP. You know full well we can't dip our toes into lowsec without losing a super fleet, and you slap a load more R64's there anyway. Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Moonlight Jade
Rens 911 GoonSwarm
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 01:59:00 -
[123] - Quote
PL is ruining our game again.
This favoritism must stop NOW! |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
74
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 02:34:00 -
[124] - Quote
We won't know who is playing favorites until SC rebalancing |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 05:22:00 -
[125] - Quote
Something seems to be missing. There is no Access right-click (context) menu for the reprocessing arrays. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
568
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 08:31:00 -
[126] - Quote
Moonlight Jade wrote:PL is ruining our game again.
This favoritism must stop NOW!
Good joke. If the following quote is true, you should try and heed your own mantra of adapt, improve and HTFU for a change:
Seith Kali wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: 0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.
This is yet another clear example of PL favouritism from CCP. You know full well we can't dip our toes into lowsec without losing a super fleet, and you slap a load more R64's there anyway.
If you cannot, with your sheer numbers, fend off PL, you clearly have more problems than than falling R64 prices. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2379
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 10:58:00 -
[127] - Quote
Aryth wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Bridgette d'Iberville wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place. I'm being stupid for asking this since I think you pretty clearly articulated it above, but are you saying you can run moon mining arrays in 0.4 space? Are other modules (hello reactors) that are currently restricted to 0.3 or lower space also getting the make-over? (As an aside, I've never put up a POS in 0.4 but seem to remember some game guides indicating charters were required for them. That always seemed weird to me and I wondered if that was actually the case). Yes and yes. Nothing has changed on the structures themselves, we've just changed the code so "0.4" means "up to 0.4" rather than "below 0.4". Actually, I hope you changed the code to be " less than 0.45 " IIRC truesec less than 0.45 is rounded down to 0.4 in the game. Correct? MDD This particular bit of code converts the real security value to a single-place decimal (actually, to a integer representation between -1000 and +1000, but whatever) prior to doing the comparison, rounding the same way that we do for ingame sec display. Do you plan on then going back to 50% to keep the current supply/demand ratios the same then?
Not if we can avoid it, no. The 37.5/50 thing was to keep demand the same, particularly as it pertains to ratios between different materials. A general minor increase in supply isn't something we have a lot of immediate concern over, and the risk is compartmentalized separately to the risks involved in manufacturing changes.
Dr Cow wrote:So does this allow fighter assignment in .4 systems as well?
Probably not, given that this is specifically in the anchoring code, but that's something we should maybe look into at some point.
Dirk MacGirk wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Bridgette d'Iberville wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place. I'm being stupid for asking this since I think you pretty clearly articulated it above, but are you saying you can run moon mining arrays in 0.4 space? Are other modules (hello reactors) that are currently restricted to 0.3 or lower space also getting the make-over? (As an aside, I've never put up a POS in 0.4 but seem to remember some game guides indicating charters were required for them. That always seemed weird to me and I wondered if that was actually the case). Yes and yes. Nothing has changed on the structures themselves, we've just changed the code so "0.4" means "up to 0.4" rather than "below 0.4". Greyscale - What does CCP's economics group have to say about this? I'd imagine its been cleared as a good thing for the markets or that the "gameplay" associated with it has an overwhelming benefit.
I haven't talked to them about it, it didn't seem like a big enough deal for the economy as a whole to worry about.BigWolfUK wrote:DoToo Foo wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Tax rate at a POS makes no sense, since you can only install corporation jobs that get paid from the corporation wallet, you would only be taxing yourself.
There exist small to medium corps that get together for industry. The game mechanics so far have restricted the number of corps doing this; but they do exist. We charge pilots using other divisions to do their research/industry, with the tax being paid into the master wallet. We use this to subsidize POS fuel; Eve University apparently does the same. We were hoping that while industry and corporations were being re-worked; we would get more control. I understand corp roles are being re-worked next round, but please don't reduce the limited options for tax that I already have. This... I would of thought CCP would have known it was used in this method already...
None of the three or four people involved in the decision have (AFAIK) played in a corp set up so that one division taxes another. It's a pretty niche setup, and we can't afford to do widespread internal reviews for every minor point that comes up. Rather, we generally find it much more efficient to get info to players as early as possible, as you guys have a much broader range of experience than we could ever hope to have internally :) |
|
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 11:51:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:...and the risk is compartmentalized separately to the risks involved in manufacturing changes.
What on earth are you talking about? An increase in goo supply is going to add a hell of a lot to consider with regards to ME changes. The less expensive T2 is, the less relevant each % of ME is with regards to a manufacturers' bottom line.
You don't 'compartmentalized' them differently (quite the term for someone who speaks the Queen's english ) as it serves to flatten the impact of ME advantage choices. Do I buy a team? Do I use a high ME or high run decryptor?
The same is true for TE. The increase in build times in great for introducing more value in TE advantage and the associated choices which were previously undervalued next to ME. Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2379
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 11:58:00 -
[129] - Quote
Seith Kali wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:...and the risk is compartmentalized separately to the risks involved in manufacturing changes. What on earth are you talking about? An increase in goo supply is going to add a hell of a lot to consider with regards to ME changes. The less expensive T2 is, the less relevant each % of ME is with regards to a manufacturers' bottom line. You don't 'compartmentalized' them differently (quite the term for someone who speaks the Queen's english ) as it serves to flatten the impact of ME advantage choices. Do I buy a team? Do I use a high ME or high run decryptor? The same is true for TE. The increase in build times in great for introducing more value in TE advantage and the associated choices which were previously undervalued next to ME.
I don't follow your logic here. A percentage reduction is a percentage reduction, it seems like it should have the same impact on your profit margin regardless of what the material costs are. Cheaper items will result in smaller absolute profit in the short term, to be sure, but that is a thing that the market should resolve sensibly over time. |
|
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 12:25:00 -
[130] - Quote
Because 1% of 100m is only 0.1% of 1000m. The cheaper a percentage is, the less value you get out of things like outposts, bidding on teams, decyptors and the less relevant station build costs will be. On top of that, the longer it takes to build something, the greater the value of each % of TE.
Due to fuel, hauling stuff about is always going to be a flat rate per volume, regardless of the value of the item.
The greater the value of decryptors next to the output product the less choices you have to use. There is no way you would use a decyptor to make ammo right now, for example. If your ammo bpc produced 100m worth of ammo, you might think about it.
I dunno how I can be more coherent about this really. A % is a %, yes. But you have to buy that %, the less it is worth the less the options that are viable to get it.
Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
|
Jon Lucien
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
40
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 12:35:00 -
[131] - Quote
Please limit the size of your quote pyramids. Giant 6-layer quote pyramids are difficult to read and take up too much space. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
432
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 12:44:00 -
[132] - Quote
Having more of the better moons in Nullsec and fewer of them in Lowsec, effectively what is being requested, indeed makes sense. Conversely, having more moons available in systems that can't be controlled by anyone to the degree that Sov Null can be controlled is also good for the game overall ... though not necessarily for those who control the majority of them in Sov Null :) A randomisation of the moons in 0.4 at release also makes a lot of sense.
The market will follow the changes. Prices will go down after a little while due to extra resources being available; anyone who has been withholding product to artificially inflate the market or who has been speculating may lose. Good for that. Lower prices means more people will be willing to try a T2 ship instead of a T1 ship, as the cost drops below their personal thresholds for loss values. Increased usage will raise prices, so lower profit per unit but higher volume ... similar profit per hour? Who knows. But it certainly would make T2 more accessible to more players.
And personally, as a wormhole dweller who has seen Nullsec entities farming W-space and helping to tank the T3 industry, I'm all in favour of reducing T2 costs and prices.
|
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 12:58:00 -
[133] - Quote
I just want to be clear that 0.4 moon mining isn't something I am opposed to, there's nothing wrong with it in principle. It is just a case of not acknowledging that an increase of goo supply serves to harm the efficacy and, indeed, the viability of particular choices the manufacturer has open to them.
Seeing as that much of the point of crius seems to be to broaden optimization possibilities, de-compartmentalizeratering this rings a couple of alarm bells. Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3605
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 12:59:00 -
[134] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:The ones that don't trust their members or are unable to defend their POS will simply research and copy in (now slotless) NPC stations. I think you're deliberately confusing a small indy corp with a nullsec alliance or RvB. The notion of defending a POS is nonsense - If it's online, and armed, then the only groups liable to attack it are those with sufficiently overwhelming force that it's reinforced within half an hour. That RF can take place at ANY time of the day. Are you seriously suggesting that to take advantage of researching in POS towers that small indy corps now need enough members to put up an around-the-clock defensive fleet? What about smaller still, one or two man corps that use industry to fund other things, like PvP? Is it a case of: "Hey, sorry. We here at CCP think that EVE is serious business and you can forget about that spontaneous weekend trip away with your wife because when you get back your BPOs are all gone." For a highsec POS at least you will get a wardec notice period before being at risk, but like I said, small corps will just use NPC stations. With the removal of slots and system wide cost scaling this isn't as big a deal as it used to be with slot constraints. Those that want to take the risk, enjoy the POS bonuses. The choice is yours.
One real problem from the risk side of things is that the POS ability to defend itself - or rather, be used by a player or group of players to defend itself - is absolutely laughable. Stats on the modules are dated to an era where a dread had less EHP than can be achieved by a well tanked cruiser or battlecruiser these days, not to mention the ridiculous lock times. The UI to actually manage your weapons is pretty bad too, but that's a harder problem to tackle, I suspect. All of that, though, means that "highsec POS users" are another group that would benefit from POS guns not being awful.
I suggest:
- Buff damage numbers a bit, and perhaps damage application numbers.
- Buff Starbase Defense Management to be two arrays per level instead of one.
- Increase scan resolution on weapon batteries by a factor of five and scan resolution on electronic warfare and neuting batteries by a factor of ten. To balance this and maximize the benefit of these changes to manned towers, increase the random lock delay by the same factor.
- Have a look at the stats on neuting batteries. Not relevant to highsec but in theory they should be the best weapon against capitals or supers; in practice, 1k cap is nothing. Alternatively, give us different sizes of neuting batteries - small, medium, large, and extra large.
Do all that and then if a "small corp" or indeed any corp is vigilant with their defense, they'll have the capability to defend their POS. Granted, it'll mean some tradeoffs, fewer labs and arrays if they want to supplement gun batteries with shield hardeners and electronic warfare, but that's as it should be - at least doing so would actually be a viable option.
Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 13:00:00 -
[135] - Quote
mynnna wrote: Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.
So you agree there is a slight smell in the air? Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3605
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 13:13:00 -
[136] - Quote
Seith Kali wrote:mynnna wrote: Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.
So you agree there is a slight smell in the air?
No, I'm saying it's going to be pretty much unnoticeable. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1453
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 13:26:00 -
[137] - Quote
A time reduction is not as good as a material reduction. Stuff is done faster, but not cheaper. The profit per unit stays the same. If that profit is eaten up by costs like transportation, things remain unprofitable, no matter how fast you can make them. GRRR Goons |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
220
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 14:52:00 -
[138] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Reshuffle all the moons in 0.4 as of the Crius release
A land rush by those most connected with the community, those most informed, has already begun. As with the last major moon change, where moon deposits were changed, nobody should know until the change actually hits the server.
This. BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Danny Centauri
Manu Fortius space weaponry and trade
95
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 21:36:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Seith Kali wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:...and the risk is compartmentalized separately to the risks involved in manufacturing changes. What on earth are you talking about? An increase in goo supply is going to add a hell of a lot to consider with regards to ME changes. The less expensive T2 is, the less relevant each % of ME is with regards to a manufacturers' bottom line. You don't 'compartmentalized' them differently (quite the term for someone who speaks the Queen's english ) as it serves to flatten the impact of ME advantage choices. Do I buy a team? Do I use a high ME or high run decryptor? The same is true for TE. The increase in build times in great for introducing more value in TE advantage and the associated choices which were previously undervalued next to ME. I don't follow your logic here. A percentage reduction is a percentage reduction, it seems like it should have the same impact on your profit margin regardless of what the material costs are. Cheaper items will result in smaller absolute profit in the short term, to be sure, but that is a thing that the market should resolve sensibly over time.
Think the OP missed that a percentage reduction in material costs will mean the same percentage reduction in final selling price and product value. Ultimately this means a percentage reduction in team costs so everything still lines up nicely.
T2 material prices are irrelevant in every single way other than the volume that one individual can produce higher moon goo prices generally mean one industrialist can shift less product as more ISK is locked down in production. EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players. |
Lelira Cirim
EVE University Ivy League
142
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 04:03:00 -
[140] - Quote
Bridgette d'Iberville wrote:Thanks for answering that, I've never tried to put a POS in 0.4 because some of the guides mention that starbase charters were required. With an 11 year old MMO, it's crucial to scrutinise the authorship date of any guide, due to how thoroughly out of date it can become.
Wikis are no different, but at least they are only as out of date as the last person who notices. Do not actively tank my patience. || -áEvents Team -á|| -áUniWiki Team |
|
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
237
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 09:42:00 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote: You might notice something else too.
You can start jobs in facilities where you have a blueprint. regardless of region, as long as they're in range.
You mean that, even if I am in Domain, I can still start jobs in Tash-Murkon or Kador as long as it is within the range the Scientific Networking skill allows me to start jobs? Yes. Does this also work now for Marketing and Daytrade? No just for the industry skills.
This feels really unfair. |
Prince Kobol
1954
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 10:04:00 -
[142] - Quote
mynnna wrote:One real problem from the risk side of things is that the POS ability to defend itself - or rather, be used by a player or group of players to defend itself - is absolutely laughable. Stats on the modules are dated to an era where a dread had less EHP than can be achieved by a well tanked cruiser or battlecruiser these days, not to mention the ridiculous lock times. The UI to actually manage your weapons is pretty bad too, but that's a harder problem to tackle, I suspect. All of that, though, means that "highsec POS users" are another group that would benefit from POS guns not being awful. I suggest:
- Buff damage numbers a bit, and perhaps damage application numbers.
- Buff Starbase Defense Management to be two arrays per level instead of one.
- Increase scan resolution on weapon batteries by a factor of five and scan resolution on electronic warfare and neuting batteries by a factor of ten. To balance this and maximize the benefit of these changes to manned towers, increase the random lock delay by the same factor.
- Have a look at the stats on neuting batteries. Not relevant to highsec but in theory they should be the best weapon against capitals or supers; in practice, 1k cap is nothing. Alternatively, give us different sizes of neuting batteries - small, medium, large, and extra large.
Do all that and then if a "small corp" or indeed any corp is vigilant with their defense, they'll have the capability to defend their POS. Granted, it'll mean some tradeoffs, fewer labs and arrays if they want to supplement gun batteries with shield hardeners and electronic warfare, but that's as it should be - at least doing so would actually be a viable option. Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.
Totally agree with mynnna.
PoS defences are joke these days. You can easily take out a fully defended pos in HS these days little more then a small group of BS's with next to no effort.
PoS defensive modules are a poor joke. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3424
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 13:09:00 -
[143] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:A time reduction is not as good as a material reduction. Stuff is done faster, but not cheaper. The profit per unit stays the same. If that profit is eaten up by costs like transportation, things remain unprofitable, no matter how fast you can make them.
Time reductions are the 'safe' modifier. While they can destroy a market through oversupply, they can't make it completely unprofitable for other people. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
iskflakes
915
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 20:24:00 -
[144] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:mynnna wrote:One real problem from the risk side of things is that the POS ability to defend itself - or rather, be used by a player or group of players to defend itself - is absolutely laughable. Stats on the modules are dated to an era where a dread had less EHP than can be achieved by a well tanked cruiser or battlecruiser these days, not to mention the ridiculous lock times. The UI to actually manage your weapons is pretty bad too, but that's a harder problem to tackle, I suspect. All of that, though, means that "highsec POS users" are another group that would benefit from POS guns not being awful. I suggest:
- Buff damage numbers a bit, and perhaps damage application numbers.
- Buff Starbase Defense Management to be two arrays per level instead of one.
- Increase scan resolution on weapon batteries by a factor of five and scan resolution on electronic warfare and neuting batteries by a factor of ten. To balance this and maximize the benefit of these changes to manned towers, increase the random lock delay by the same factor.
- Have a look at the stats on neuting batteries. Not relevant to highsec but in theory they should be the best weapon against capitals or supers; in practice, 1k cap is nothing. Alternatively, give us different sizes of neuting batteries - small, medium, large, and extra large.
Do all that and then if a "small corp" or indeed any corp is vigilant with their defense, they'll have the capability to defend their POS. Granted, it'll mean some tradeoffs, fewer labs and arrays if they want to supplement gun batteries with shield hardeners and electronic warfare, but that's as it should be - at least doing so would actually be a viable option. Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned. Totally agree with mynnna. PoS defences are joke these days. You can easily take out a fully defended pos in HS these days little more then a small group of BS's with next to no effort. PoS defensive modules are a poor joke.
+1
A rebalance of POS module stats would not take much work and would sort out a lot of problems with towers.
The cruise missile/torp batteries are useless. The blasters don't have enough optimal range to hit anything. The lock times are too long. The scrams don't actually scram you. The anti-capital weapons don't threaten capitals. The list goes on..
- |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
362
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 07:32:00 -
[145] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:mynnna wrote:One real problem from the risk side of things is that the POS ability to defend itself - or rather, be used by a player or group of players to defend itself - is absolutely laughable. Stats on the modules are dated to an era where a dread had less EHP than can be achieved by a well tanked cruiser or battlecruiser these days, not to mention the ridiculous lock times. The UI to actually manage your weapons is pretty bad too, but that's a harder problem to tackle, I suspect. All of that, though, means that "highsec POS users" are another group that would benefit from POS guns not being awful. I suggest:
- Buff damage numbers a bit, and perhaps damage application numbers.
- Buff Starbase Defense Management to be two arrays per level instead of one.
- Increase scan resolution on weapon batteries by a factor of five and scan resolution on electronic warfare and neuting batteries by a factor of ten. To balance this and maximize the benefit of these changes to manned towers, increase the random lock delay by the same factor.
- Have a look at the stats on neuting batteries. Not relevant to highsec but in theory they should be the best weapon against capitals or supers; in practice, 1k cap is nothing. Alternatively, give us different sizes of neuting batteries - small, medium, large, and extra large.
Do all that and then if a "small corp" or indeed any corp is vigilant with their defense, they'll have the capability to defend their POS. Granted, it'll mean some tradeoffs, fewer labs and arrays if they want to supplement gun batteries with shield hardeners and electronic warfare, but that's as it should be - at least doing so would actually be a viable option. Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned. Totally agree with mynnna. PoS defences are joke these days. You can easily take out a fully defended pos in HS these days little more then a small group of BS's with next to no effort. PoS defensive modules are a poor joke. +1 A rebalance of POS module stats would not take much work and would sort out a lot of problems with towers. The cruise missile/torp batteries are useless. The blasters don't have enough optimal range to hit anything. The lock times are too long. The scrams don't actually scram you. The anti-capital weapons don't threaten capitals. The list goes on..
+2
Starbases used to be a real threat to Dreadnoughts and Carriers. Now they struggle to kill cruisers and frigates.
Why are our former Deathstars now less scary than an X-Wing? |
Blue Harrier
167
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 10:39:00 -
[146] - Quote
First for all you old hands reading this please remember that although I have played Eve on and off for many years I have never set up a POS before so please bear with me.
From questions I have asked (and yes I did the GÇÿresearchGÇÖ) the information on setting up a POS is in most cases woefully inadequate. It is further exasperated by lacking GÇÿinformationGÇÖ given on some modules descriptions.
I also understand talking about the POS code is a taboo subject and I will try and refrain from doing so.
As most reports here are for problems with the client I thought I would report some things that seem to be working. I have successfully set up a Gallente Medium Tower in a 0.8 area of space and installed and tested both a Compression Array and a Reprocessing Array and although I had to fight with the arcane interfaces was able to do so with the minimum of help.
Setting up a Caldari Medium Tower in a 0.4 system was however a different experience. Getting the tower launched, anchored and online was the easy bit. Installing a Moon Harvesting Array and a Silo and getting them to both do actual work and also work together was a nightmare. My first problem was finding that although the anchor and online menu was on the Array the actual GÇÿwhat I want this Array and Silo to doGÇÖ instructions were on a none intuitive tab on the GÇÿManageGÇÖ interface of the tower. It took quite a few offline/online click this and click that before I had the full information to get both items working and together.
The final piece of the puzzle came when I realised I had to drag and drop the harvested GÇÿstuffGÇÖ from the Harvester to the Silo (on the tab) then click [Apply] then online the Silo first then the Harvester to get the blasted things working.
Next was setting up some Railgun Batteries for defence work, sadly the information panel for the batteries forgot one crucial bit of information GÇÿThey have to be anchored outside the force fieldGÇÖ, I spent quite some time (yes you can ROTFL if you wish), trying to anchor them. After asking in game and finding out yes this was so and trying yet again I finally found I had to click in just the right place when the box is outside the force field to get the little popup menu for anchor.
So CCP yes it all works if you can spend the time fighting the interfaces but some of the information panels could really do with some updates on how things should be done. Oh yes and the WiKi could do with an update as well.
Sorry for the long post, regards BH.
And a +3 to the above posts.
"You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
163
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 11:30:00 -
[147] - Quote
'Structure Cost Scaling'
Otherwise known as onlining multiples of the same array to gain tax bonuses at POSes.
CCP devs seem unwilling to discuss or answer questions on this issue at the comments section of the original announcement and at the latest dev blog comments section. I have been directed here from the 'Blueprints' channel even though I don't think this is the ideal forum.
I and others feel that the proposed method of attaining additional tax bonuses at POSes by anchoring & onlining multiples of the exact same array at POSes is messy and a very bad method. CCP Greyscale still seems very confused as to how it will work in practise and doesn't think offlining the remaining arrays after the job is started is a problem, a pointless exercise, or an alleviation of the intended risk factor. No consideration has been given as to whether the additional arrays will, or can, be unanchored and removed after the job has been set up. In short it's a bodge job wrapped in a pretty bow of massive loopholes.
This idea is apparently being done to protect certain markets. I don't think the POS array or POS tower markets are going to suffer post Crius so there shouldn't be any worries about less arrays at towers or size of towers being deployed. Be sure there will be much more POS destruction with the possibility of expensive BPOs dropping and the disruption & destruction of others markets. This destruction will all have to be replaced.
A far better method would be to introduce new skillbook/s, maybe at 10x skill training if you so wish, to give tax bonuses on jobs at POSes. This lines up with current policy such as making refining/reprocessing something you have to spend significant time skilling into. A proper profession. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2387
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 11:55:00 -
[148] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:'Structure Cost Scaling'
Otherwise known as onlining multiples of the same array to gain tax bonuses at POSes.
CCP devs seem unwilling to discuss or answer questions on this issue at the comments section of the original announcement and at the latest dev blog comments section. I have been directed here from the 'Blueprints' channel even though I don't think this is the ideal forum.
I and others feel that the proposed method of attaining additional tax bonuses at POSes by anchoring & onlining multiples of the exact same array at POSes is messy and a very bad method. CCP Greyscale still seems very confused as to how it will work in practise and doesn't think offlining the remaining arrays after the job is started is a problem, a pointless exercise, or an alleviation of the intended risk factor. No consideration has been given as to whether the additional arrays will, or can, be unanchored and removed after the job has been set up. In short it's a bodge job wrapped in a pretty bow of massive loopholes.
This idea is apparently being done to protect certain markets. I don't think the POS array or POS tower markets are going to suffer post Crius so there shouldn't be any worries about less arrays at towers or size of towers being deployed. Be sure there will be much more POS destruction with the possibility of expensive BPOs dropping and the disruption & destruction of others markets. This destruction will all have to be replaced.
A far better method would be to introduce new skillbook/s, maybe at 10x skill training if you so wish, to give tax bonuses on jobs at POSes. This lines up with current policy such as making refining/reprocessing something you have to spend significant time skilling into. A proper profession.
We're not replying because you're putting words into our mouths and making thinly-veiled insults, which is usually an indicator of an unproductive discussion waiting to happen.
The multi-structure bonus is still being worked through, we are intending to handle the online/offline issues in the coming weeks but we don't have a firm solution yet.
Your skillbook suggestion does not address the issue that this bonus is trying to resolve, namely that without it the optimal setup is one of each type of structures and a load of defenses, which is uninteresting. |
|
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
109
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 12:17:00 -
[149] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Your skillbook suggestion does not address the issue that this bonus is trying to resolve, namely that without it the optimal setup is one of each type of structures and a load of defenses, which is uninteresting.
On that note, how about some way to siege in highsec, allowing dunking large towers without hundreds of man hours? A new flavor of bastion module that couldn't track a stationary bus, for example. Dunno about you but I'd call that interesting! Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
33
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 13:35:00 -
[150] - Quote
Seith Kali wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Your skillbook suggestion does not address the issue that this bonus is trying to resolve, namely that without it the optimal setup is one of each type of structures and a load of defenses, which is uninteresting.
On that note, how about some way to siege in highsec, allowing dunking large towers without hundreds of man hours? A new flavor of bastion module that couldn't track a stationary bus, for example. Dunno about you but I'd call that interesting!
Mobile Siege Cannon FTW!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |