| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
    |
Posted - 2008.04.05 15:09:00 -
[61]
Also, preserving the current fuel ratios is easy. You just need to set the base consumption on a large tower to 320 pellets per hour instead of 80, and then all 18 configurations of tower will use an integer number of pellets per hour:
This is the smallest possible such number, since 56 and 45 are coprime.
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.05 16:04:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Goumindong on 05/04/2008 16:05:26
 Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Fixed your post.
With the proposed system, you could outsource this task or buy fuel pellets off the market. At the moment, it's possible to go to a trade hub and buy all the separate fuels, and I'm sure plenty of people would set about producing fuel pellets at competitive prices, given the chance.
True, but competitive price must be higher than the component cost which means, as a whole costs goes up with little to no benefit to the consumers[the people this change is supposed to benefit]. If people can already purchase the minerals at a markup in a market hub the combined product would be worth as much as that marked up price in that hub.
So you either haul it yourself and do the math or you start paying a premium above the premium you were already paying for someone else to do this for you.
either way its a useless extra step that doesn't solve the problem that hauling POS fuel is boring and antithetical to the game. Seriously, get rid of it all together, fold the cost of fuel into the cost of the modules/towers and then make it actually possible to disable the purpose of a tower by attacking it without large forces.
Its very simple, we are playing a game and not playing a job. Production is a game, destruction is a game, maintenance is a job. Adding an extra step into the maintenance does not make it any less of a job.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.04.05 17:36:00 -
[63]
Oh, I have an idea!
New hi-slot industrial module, POS fuel converter. The industrial jettisons the fuel stuff into a jetcan, targets the jetcan and activates the module on it.
The module cycles pretty quickly, and converts the fuel in the can into fuel cells/rods/pellets/whatever for the POS.
Simply have a hi slot module, with 4 different scripts for each fuel type. Let industrials target stuff inside POS force fields.
And hi slots on industrials aren't really that critical. Making one new type of module won't kill empire manufacturing. Scripts take up 0 room. And you can take a lot of the NPC stuff, the 4 specific isotopes, and make stuff as needed, in space.
Or, you can just manufacture the fuels, and truck them out ready-made to POSes that need fueling. Do it near a main POS in 0.0, or simply a safe spot in empire.
Hows that sound?
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.04.05 17:39:00 -
[64]
As someone who just left the POS market, let me say that this is perfect. Now how about working on silo maintenance requirements so they don't need to be tended every day/week? What possible reason can there be for not increasing the capacity of silos to allow a specialised high-capacity setup to run for two weeks or a month unattended?
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.04.05 18:28:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Goumindong
True, but competitive price must be higher than the component cost which means, as a whole costs goes up with little to no benefit to the consumers[the people this change is supposed to benefit].
...
Its very simple, we are playing a game and not playing a job. Production is a game, destruction is a game, maintenance is a job. Adding an extra step into the maintenance does not make it any less of a job.
I don't deny anything you say, but as a compromise, what do you think of reducing the volume of the pellets so that they only have, say, 1 tenth of the volume of their component parts? I reckon it'd be well worth the additional premium if it meant that you could haul a month's worth of fuel for a large tower, in a blockade runner, in a single trip.
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Abrazzar
Equilibrium Inc.
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.04.05 18:35:00 -
[66]
Could someone with leet excel skillz check out how much the volume would need to be reduce to make up a 5%, 10%, 25%, 50% profit margin on Fuel Rods with reduced jump fuel need? Something like: "Needs x% fewer jumps, each y light years, requiring z jump fuel."
Might be interesting, though I don't have any data to do that.
--------
Ideas for:
Mining
Clouds
|
Creader
|
Posted - 2008.04.05 18:53:00 -
[67]
mmm maybe equip the pos's to be able to use other racial fuel cells but at a higher consumption than its own rate say 45% faster consumption if you used cald fuel on a amarr tower for example.
would make pos fueling a bit easyer but at great expencebut still needs racial isotopes.
but over all a great idea as i have to spend 3 days in emoire gathering differnt iso tops and npc feul every 2-3 weeks.
|
Goumindong
|
Posted - 2008.04.05 22:03:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Goumindong on 05/04/2008 22:03:06
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: Goumindong
True, but competitive price must be higher than the component cost which means, as a whole costs goes up with little to no benefit to the consumers[the people this change is supposed to benefit].
...
Its very simple, we are playing a game and not playing a job. Production is a game, destruction is a game, maintenance is a job. Adding an extra step into the maintenance does not make it any less of a job.
I don't deny anything you say, but as a compromise, what do you think of reducing the volume of the pellets so that they only have, say, 1 tenth of the volume of their component parts? I reckon it'd be well worth the additional premium if it meant that you could haul a month's worth of fuel for a large tower, in a blockade runner, in a single trip.
It would certainly be an improvement, but then again you could always just make the stuff 1/10th the size as well and skip the production step.
http://eve-files.com/dl/154147
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Vote Goumindong for CSM[/url] |
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.05 22:03:00 -
[69]
Oh dear god YES! i've been banging on about this idea for over a year now, when the patch comes and i get to send all those POS fueling excel sheets to my recycle bin, i'm gonna be a very very very happpy bunny 
*Hugs CCP Greyscale*
-
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Kaathar Rielspar
Universal Exports
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 02:42:00 -
[70]
Fuel Cells tbh
____________________
 |
|
VileLust
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 03:54:00 -
[71]
is there no way to allow BOTH recources? a fuel.. rod? or just normal fuel, either or.
Just cut down the cargo space(a lot) of the rod, so many many can be moved vs the normal way to haul recources, with a kickback of increased cost(production lines, bad skills, whatever)
I would gladly spend a bit more time and money in empire to build the stuff and use a hauler or carrier to move it all, rather than 50 damn freighter runs ^_^
|
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 04:38:00 -
[72]
Edited by: grgjegb gergerg on 06/04/2008 04:39:22
It might also be pretty simple to have ONE type of "pos fuel" processed item, and "processed X isotopes." Then you could simply sell fuel and isotopes, and reduce it to fuel, the specific isotope, and charters, correct? If you make a single run produce 800 instead of 80, and simply decrease the size to 10% and increase the consumption appropriate to tower type, that might be "fairer"?
Dunno how that would affect any calculations. But any increase in POS fuel is going to upset spreadsheets and profit margins, and bring grumbles, but I'm sure noone will complain if it errs the cheaper way. :)
I still say CCP should give a one-time freebie fuel conversion in existing POSes, so people just unload any specific types that didn't convert to whole units of "fuel," and of course, seed the fuel BPOs a week or three beforehand. Explain it, don't explain it, it'd be a nice gesture.
As funny as it would be watching an insane scramble on fuel BPOs and people tearing their hair out... well, actually, go for it! I don't have a POS, and it'll be hilarious! 
|
Vaal Erit
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 08:27:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Maaku
Making the isotopes part of the fuel units makes for unnecessary complications with regard to manufacture/logistics.
Keep it simple:
NPCs sell fuel units which replace the Uranium/Oxygen/MechParts/Coolant/Robotics.
You fuel the tower with fuel units, the appropriate isotope, heavy water, liquid ozone, and (where necessary) charters.
Much easier all around, without fundamentally changing the shape of POS logistics, requiring new blueprints to buy/research, or imposing new demand on manufacturing.
This is by far the better solution. It has zero drawbacks unlike the initial CCP bpo-based fuel brick idea. Creating a new thing for manufacturers to do is nice and cool, but not when it makes other parts of the game a lot more tedious.
|
Jan Riksma
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 10:17:00 -
[74]
It won't make it easier it will infact make it harder and expensiver. You still need ever type fuel as used before but you have to covert into pellets. You just adding an extra step and if you buy off market those producers want to be compensated so fuelling a pos would be more expensive.
Verry bad bad idea.
Scrap it right now
 |
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 12:30:00 -
[75]
Regarding the “extra step” argument, that all this change brings is adding the extra stage of cooking the materials into the fuel rods, I personally (as someone who spends way too much time fuelling pos’s) don’t see it that way.
I see it as a tradeoff, rather than dealing with 8 separate POS fuels, we’ll only have to deal with 4, four less numbers that need to be calculated / noted down / shift+dragged / manually balanced.
It takes a workload (and an annoying timesink) off of the people that actually fuel the POSs, and replaces it with a minor extra step of cooking the materials.
I wonder how many of the people who are against this idea are actually the logistics officers of there corp or alliance, I used to be such before the carrier haulage nerf, and I can tell you for sure that this change simplifies the logistics side of 0.0 fuel stockpiling dramatically, 4 materials to balance and move instead of 8 – that simplifies things dramatically, the extra step adds almost no extra complexity for alliances who stockpile fuel in empire before moving it to 0.0 as most do (not that anyone has a choice for NPC components anyway), and for those that do extensive ice mining ops but lack a factory outpost – (Atlas for example do the odd little bit of ice mining, but lack a factory) it will not be at all difficult to adapt, simply by organising fuel rod production from a corporate level activity into a alliance level activity.
-
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Dr Cedric
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:08:00 -
[76]
So, I'm not the biggest POS runner in the game, not by a long shot. But it seems, if CCP wants to make things simpler for the FUELING and MAINTANENCE of POS, they should change a few things, other than just the fuel type consumption.
1) Rather than make a POS use fuel hourly, make it use fuel every DT, or 2x a day, rather than having the game calculate fuel needs for 5 fuel types, plus isotopes, plus water and Ozone every single hour. This might cut out a bit of server lag. Make a POS run on a day's worth of fuel rather than an hour's worth. (who spends 10 hours setting up a POS so it'll run for just one hour anyway?)
2) With the above change in mind, make these fuel rods/cells produced with the 24 hours in mind. This will give you the chance to increase the accuracy of the calculations for the production to keep fuel costs on par with the current system.
3) As voiced by a few others, let the POS run on either fuel cells or the current mechanic. It seems CCP gives options for an easier/cheaper solution if there is more work involved. Since there seems to be more work involved with the fuel cells, make them have a chance to be more efficient than the current system. Say you can only produce them in POS structures (Fuel Production array) and these can only be anchored in .4 and lower sec. Since you will have 24 hours worth of fuel in your production cycle, this makes better ME's more worthwhile. THis gives the player the option to keep it (relatively) simple w/ the current system, or to step up the investment and time required to have a cheaper and (relatively) easier choice for fueling his/her POS.
Now, last point, and one that we should all read. CCP Greyscale said in his original post
Quote:
We have therefore come up with a proposal to reduce the logistical complexity of actually fuelling towers (starting with opening your fuel storage receptacle and ending with placing the fuel in the fuel bay).
If we all just look at the last part, we can see that one fuel in, rather than 6 really is alot simpler. I don't think any of them were trying to remove the complexity of sourcing materials, moving them to a staging point and then transporting them to your POS. Just the calculations that you have to do to put the right amount of fuel in the bay.
Still, seems and OK idea to me
Dr Cedric
Dipolmatic Liason; Industrial Logistics Technician - The Nietzian Way
-My opinions and ideas do not necessarily represent those of my corporation or alliance- |
Sunfire 2000
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:21:00 -
[77]
While this concept is great in some respects, the first question is from a logistic standpoint:
How much will each pellet be in m3? Will it be a help or hinderance as far as moving them goes?
The second is that you are adding yet another step to the fueling process, in that you must now manufacture (and thus wait) for each run of fuel to complete. If the weight is not a benefit, and you cannot place more into the tower it self, and the cost remains roughly the same, it just seems like more trouble.
As the system is currently, you can purchase all of the fuels and the only serious difficulty is hauling it. Though I wouldn't consider that too difficult.
Now, if you made the pellets purchasable and not requiring manufacture, then you may have a winner.
The alternative is to have them purchasable and perhaps still make them manufacturable at a savings. With Prod Eff V and a researched bpo, then you should be able to further increase your tower fuel savings, but increase the logistics required.
|
Indigo Johnson
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:02:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Indigo Johnson on 06/04/2008 17:02:10
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
We have therefore come up with a proposal to reduce the logistical complexity of actually fuelling towers...
Was it really that hard to begin with? With the introduction of jump freighters and jump bridges it has, if anything, become alot easier.
What is the long term reason for this move, it was quite easy to understand for those using POSs in the 3+ years they have been in the game. What is the real reason?
Oh, voted bricks, pellets just sound too...dunno, meh
|
C Spawn
Abyss Restless
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 19:10:00 -
[79]
Edited by: C Spawn on 06/04/2008 19:10:54
So if that Fuel Somethings will be implemented, what will happen to the fuel we store already at 0.0s, but not in a tower yet?
It will bring so much inconvinience to POS owners at start...
So I hope CCP at least will convert fuel in tower freely without any wastage, and also convert fuel being at corporate hangar arrays.
Over. |
Rupicolous
Higher Ground
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 07:17:00 -
[80]
(1) commodity instead of several whilst factoring in the compression twist is not a solution to anything. It remains yet another attempt to broaden the industrial market without offering any serious benefit for the Pos owner. I'm sure the community will accepted the proposal in the name of "progression" although continuing to allow in tandem the old school methods, past down from our fore fathers, would definitly keep matters in flux.
|
|
Dakota Phonic
New Light
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 07:22:00 -
[81]
Personally this is a pants idea tbh, its not hard to work out what you need, with this method you'd still have to collect all the fuel you need, but instead of putting it straight into the pos you have to add another step.
Tbh, some type of corp POS management tool would be better, instead of countless ded mails that must lag up the server, why not have something in the corp tab that shows you your towers, and any production they are doing with timers on each fuel type, letting you know when your towers are gonna run out, saving you travelling to all the towers your corp has, checking on fuel and silos. Basically a remote access to the Production tab of the towers. You wouldnt be able to change fuel or empty silos remotely but the ability to check up on your towers remotely would be fantastic.
It would only be available to ceo/directors as it does give away a lot of info.
----------------------------------------------
 |
davey wavey
Umbra Inceptio
Rogue Method Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 07:25:00 -
[82]
I love the original idea, 'To make running POS's easier/simpler'.
 How is a totally different matter.
 my 2 pence worth, at the height, my corp was running 24 POS's and the biggest pain in the arse was the NPC fuels.
1) If you made the Fuel 'whatever' bits only out of the NPC parts that would be really great.
2) Make it so that players can use both fuels, npc and cells. even for a trial period.
3) When you use the cells, POS's would use 20%(adjustable) less so that it gives players the insentive to use that extra step, it will also encourge a new market and players will provide it in Empire, for the players that want fun in 0.0
That makes the fuels in the POS easier, as for the size 20%(adjustable) less volume also eases the logistic side aswell.
 Fuel bay can stay the same size again another factor which will ease the POS managment as POS's would run longer with the 20% decrease in fuel cell size.
 As long as the Sront bay size does not change it will not effect POS/SOV warfare.
|
Rupiculous
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 07:49:00 -
[83]
I have to agree with Rupicolous. The only real benefit for Pos owners would come from a compression factor in m3. The operation would obviously involve compression concepts already introduced in "ore compression", although allowing the operation of a Pos with regular commodities should remain a mandatory option.
|
Rupicalous
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 10:08:00 -
[84]
Market hunting for a fuel rod rather than the seperate commodities could definitly save time and I'm sure it would be worth the added cost; but even if the rod takes up less m3 I need to have the option to keep using individual commodities, otherwise we are just replacing Pos fuel commodities with a new fuel type labled "X".
|
TheArchJudge
FinFleet
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 10:47:00 -
[85]
I for one welcome our new Fuel Pellet overlords
|
Dachmine
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 12:26:00 -
[86]
Not a bad idea... as long a given fuel amount is same or less than current amount per day ratio, and and that current POS fuels gets automatically converted when this ever goes in effect.
...so after all is said and done, it looks like we are going back into the dark ages by using pellet burning stoves, err POSes. 
|
New Zarin
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 16:50:00 -
[87]
Edited by: New Zarin on 07/04/2008 16:52:43
Maybe this has been suggested or not... long thread to read every post
1) Rods should only be created from NPC fuels / new mined roids discussed in #6 - why.. becuase isotopes are racial and heavy water and liquid ozone depend on what onlined - thus current ice materials should not be included.
2) There should be 3 variants of the rods .. 1 for small towers 1 for medium and 1 for large.
3) One unit of rod should last for a specific time period such as 1 per hr or 6 hrs or 12 hrs or 1 per day. That part should be determined by a CCP think tank.
4) Problems with getting NPC fuels is all fuels are not often in one spot. By using fuel rods this put all npc fuels needed in one spot and easier logicically.
5) Selling the rods NPC is prefered but might not make sence considering what i stated in #4. If an NPC station has the components to make the rod why don't they have it to sell individually on the market.
6) Having the secondary option to allow mining of certain components and allowing a roq or factory slot make the components is another idea as well. This however does create more things to mine as logically you can not get all NPC fuels from ice. It may mean new roid types only available in certain security sec like how Mercoxit is. By mining these new roids and refining them gives you the npc component nessesary to make the rods but not give you the npc fuel itself.
These suggestions I state here allow for more work but work achieveable in 0.0 alone vs empire hauls in the mix. I think this suggestion is worth exploring since i personally hate going to empire to get my fuels and even it was more work to mine it and refine and then compress... i would do it.
--
AZ
|
Rupicolous
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 19:38:00 -
[88]
A reduction in NPC fuel commodity requirements isn't something that will get much opposition and there is NO reason that the industrial base shouldn't become involved with the other half of the equation. Said BPC's will create a new catagory to monopolize and competition should ensure availability in most strategic locations. The only issue is cost versus benefit and seeing the "Fuel Rod" is suggested as a replacement rather than a substitute will cost the DIY fueler additional requirements at the benefit of nothing ??? Of course the buyer will spend less time to hunt for commodities at an increase in cost and depending on the build requirements, the only players to involve him/her self with the BPC are the industrialist for profit. So it would seem to benefit both the buyer and the industrialist while giving the actual DIY fueler more cost via BPC and manufacturing slot while also adding time for production not even factoring in skill requirements. Either way the only solution in keeping a balance if reducing the fuel requirement to virtualy (1) NPC commodity is to offer a BPC substitute while continueing to allow Pos fueling with individual commodities. A compression factor might be the only benefit to a DIY feuler if only marginal at best.
|
Louis DelaBlanche
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 01:18:00 -
[89]
Interesting idea, but not sure I like the idea of bringing a production element into POS mechanics. Personally Id rather see ice products remaining as being needed seperately, & the need for all the NPC tradegoods be replaced with these pellet things either as a new NPC tradegood or, like for example with reprocessing, something that is made almost instantly when the correct combination of tradegoods is available (in the same way ore is reprocessed instantly when enough ore is available).
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Tasadare
Pleasure and Pain
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 02:54:00 -
[90]
That is the suck. For many reasons
1- you need to pay for a BPO, the ME research on it, and the Time Efficiency research as well
2- instead of just getting the fuels you need as you need them, you need all of them at once
3- there'll be a waiting time between getting the fuel and putting it in, as you'll need you get it manufactured
4- Goodbye to all the manufacturing slots in T-Z, everyone will be too busy using that for fuel to allow people to build ships and mods
5- Increased cost of fuel... the ice mats and the commodities will be the same sell price, so you add the price of manufacturing to the cost now, and, if you buy the fuel in Jita instead of mine your own and haul your own, expect a markup on the fuel
6- Have multiple racial towers, well now you'll need multiple BPOs in addition to the racial isotopes
7- Some towers would end up using MORE fuel (per the dev)
Good sides
1- new marketable item
2- only have to remember X fuel, not X isotopes, X robotics, X whatevers
Hmmm... We're not saving time nor money, we're only cutting down on the math involved (for those without the POS fuel calculator), in a game where everyone does math, has spreadsheets, and has EveFit fits everywhere I'm not to worried about that. I mean, what's next, Reducing the minerals into one bulk item so I don't have to count each mineral in my ship building???
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |