NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

The benefit of faction towers is two-fold:
- Longer run time before refuel
- Lower cost per period

You're basically removing the cost benefit.


Better solution:
Instead of producing 4 fuel blocks per batch, produce like 100 or some other larger quantity per batch (and obviously make the volume per block lower and the blocks consumed/cycle higher). then you can apply fuel reduction bonuses as per usual and everyone will be happy.

Again, a lot of people, including me, bought a faction tower to save fuel cost, which is not insignificant. Removing that makes the investment pointless if all it does is give more time between refuels, which with this change would be of questionable value since it will be much easier.

On a first calculation, I think the build times for fuel blocks are a bit too high. At 10 minutes/run, thats over a day for each week of fuel for a large tower. I guess you are counting on a mini-industry to arise for this.

any thoughts in adding a way to "stack" or queue anchoring and onlining of pos modules? This would be a big time saver for the pilots involved on the same lines as changing pos fuel over to blocks.

So, before you bought all the fuel items and use them in your starbases. Why would you still buy the pieces instead of just buying blocks directly? Then it goes from 8-10 buy orders down to 1 with no manufacturing time.

So, let me get this strait, your making it cost MORE to run towers now? your fuel blocks use almost twice what my medium gally tower uses now!

That actually isn't a real issue, since it's just an investment. You can unanchor and resell it (if it hasn't gotten blown up of course) at any time, getting your "deposit" back :)

Currently thinking about:

• Fuel divisibility situation (ie, faction/sov fuel bonuses)
• Block build times

Keep on posting, we are paying attention :)

They're worth 2bil because drop rates for faction POS gear have been ****** for a while, and very few if any new ones show up.

You havn't the production capacity in station to make all the fuel. On large POS need a production slot for 5days every 29days.

lol u want to haul pos fuel in frigate ?:P


we need logistic as its one of the profesions in game :P

They make these ships called Orcas, Freighters and Jump Freighters...

use a rorq just like every other 0.0 alliance

Alliances. Nullsec. 5 B ISK.

What about us small corps of 1-2 players playing EVE causually and running POSses in lowsec, producing stuff for the markets for the benefit of all you others out there?! Fuel pellets will make it a bit easier on us, but there is currently no plan to reduce the really tediuous work; transporting POS fuel to lowsec.

"Use a rorq" or " buy a jump freighter" you say. Well, they are WAY to expensive for a small corp!

"Flying blockade runners through low sec makes for good targets for pirates/gankers etc - thats good for EVE, and have a nice day!". Nope. I have flown through soo many gate camps in low sec and they never catch a blockade runner anyway (cloaky, warp core stabbed etc).

So why then, has no one in this simulated future ultra-capitalistic world invented a ship to solve an obvious need on the market!?

Might I suggest to you CCP that you consider introduction of a "jump hauler", i.e. a Iteron hull ship with a jump drive that is affordable for small corps (like an Orca maybe?) but has reduced cargo capacity (20000 m3 maybe). Make it work in only lowsec, if it in some way otherwise could impact the "balance" in null (what do I care about nullsec anyway?). Make it easier to maintain POSes in lowsec, and let us spend more time with pewpew instead!

Fuel pellets are good, but it will not reduce the workload for low sec POS owners significantly. Jump haulers would!

Comments, anyone? CCP?

Can a GM/DEV answer this

what happens to poses with ordinary fuel in the fuel bays during the change over?

for example the day before patch day... i have a 3/4 full fuel bay in the tower.... after patch is deployed does my tower lose all this fuel and the tower go offline?

Or is the pos fuel in the tower automatically converted into fuel blocks?

a rorq isn't 5b isk numbnuts

In order to benefit from faction POS fuel consumption bonus one has to run it for ages, it has already been discussed for thousand times on different forums. I think that the fuel bay bonus is OK.

How is more steps to build your fuel an advantage?

1. No don't.
2. No don't.
3. Yes do.

Making large towers consume 4x as much as before is better then... increasing their consumtion?
LOL CCP.

anom nerf effecting 0.0 residence, there were many reasons why that chnage was bad listed and ignored.(we know how well that change worked out)
the pos fuel change effects 0.0 residence primarly(forget faction towers). there are many reasons why removing the sov discount is bad and all have been listed. will they also be ignored this time round?

Currently thinking about:

• Fuel divisibility situation (ie, faction/sov fuel bonuses)
• Block build times

Keep on posting, we are paying attention :)

You don't have to build anything. Just buy the blocks in hisec.

Hi again.

Changes:
...[/list]

The blocks are around 8% cheaper than the current fuel costs. Selling the blocks at that 8% gives a very generous 1.2b/month profit per character building them (300 mil more if building at a small tower). Somehow, I don't think supply will be an issue.

Why not just increase the cycle time of faction towers instead of only increasing there fuel bay size?

Also, is there a reason you have made the fuels racial rather than generic?

strg+A / right click, stack all = win

Now I just have to find a way to avoid seeing EvE as a HappyHappyJoyJoyLand after all the good changes and iterations announced for the upcoming expansion. Stop it! You're making me too happy!....

Surely to address the lower running costs of a Faction tower all that needs to be changed is the cycle time changed to 1.25 hours (As an example) between cycle rather than 1 hour? That cannot be too hard to implement?

I'm not reading 40+ pages of predominantly waffle, if my input has been discussed already just disregard it, no need for me to feel ashamed for raising what I see as a simple answer to the faction bonuses, although your response to my post doesn't add anything to this discussion and this is why I haven't read the 40 odd pages before because of flaming and waffle like your quoted post!

So ywah... For a corp that bought alot of faction POS's to keep the run cost down we will now have to pull down the faction ones to put up normal ones since its basicly the same now!? Does that makes sence to anyone?

I suggest you keep the fuel benefits for faction towers. Afterall its what we paid fir when billions of isk on towers.

Other that, looking forward to the rest.

Hi again.

Changes:

• We're going to kick the build time down to 5 minutes and see where that gets us to.
• We're going to allow component assembly arrays to build fuel blocks too because why not.
• We're going to kick the granularity up by a factor of ten and re-implement ~15%/~25% fuel use bonuses for faction towers (and remove the faction-tower-specific bay size increases at the same time).
• CORRECTION: offline timers are not changed, that's still instantaneous; sorry for any confusion, I'm going to get the blog updated in a bit.

WRT the faction tower fuel use, we were hoping that what we were being told by various large-scale fuel operators that maintaining the high refuel interval was the main benefit for most people, as all other things being equal a 1/2/4 scheme is easier to work with than a 10/20/40 one. Obviously we didn't talk to enough small-scale users for whom the use bonus is a bigger deal; this feedback thread has established that this is still a big deal, so we're dropping to our first fallback position and doing 10/20/40 instead.

Things we're not considering:

• Upping cycle times. It breaks reactors etc, and it makes the system harder for players to wrangle. We'd like to move away from designs that require you to memorize data tables to use them properly.
• Making the handover (or anything else to do with this change) more complex/more automated. If for example we determined that we couldn't do this without some form of upgrade script, we'd have cut the feature, because it increases the workload and the risk of this change by a factor of two or three, and at that level we can't justify committing to it. This goes for putting fuel into towers, it goes for running two fuel types at once (which would require major code changes) and so on.

Other things:

• You'll be able to reprocess fuel blocks in the normal way, getting back all the materials etc.
• Currently they're configured to be researchable, with fairly short durations. I'm seeing some questions about this here - is there a strong reason why these need to be unresearchable? I don't have an industry designer on hand right now or I'd ask them :)
• We'll keep an eye on the ice use situation and make further changes there if needed
• WRT the changes to robotics use, assuming large towers are the primary use case then going the other way would kick global consumption up by a factor of 3-4, which would make them a gigantic production bottleneck. Reducing the demand on small/medium towers a little is believed to be a better option than significantly driving up the running costs of all non-small towers everywhere.
• The handover isn't doing anything magic - it'll use old fuel before the switchover and new fuel afterwards. We're saying "half-and-half" because we're recommending you all put a mix of old and new fuel in your towers while the switch is happening, so it has old fuel available before the switch downtime and new fuel available after the downtime.
• WRT talking to players earlier, we have to strike a very careful balance between getting feedback early and not getting people's hopes up. Ideally we'd get input from everyone as soon as we start design work, but our experience has been that bringing very vague designs to the community, and/or pitching designs that subsequently get cut due to being infeasible, creates more disruption than holding back until we're sure something is actually going to work. We do of course talk to subject-matter specialists (ie, people who play that area of the game regularly) within CCP, and the CSM, in the early stages of the design.

MOTHER OF GOD... DO YOU PPL READ???

quoting Greyscale for the Nth time cause of all the trolls too lazy to read...

Any hope on the block coloring request or have I missed it in the intervening 40 odd pages?

Who is this "we"? You got mice in your pocket?

For me it adds one step and removes several others, so its easier.

Incorporating player feedback - happy days!

+1 to recoloring the fuel block icons.

But if you have to go back to the art department: how about distinctive shapes?

Caldari: functional square blocks.
Gallente: aesthetically pleasing pyramids.
Amarr: "perfect" spheres.
Minmatar: something hexagonal, pitted, and rusty. Defying logic, they work anyway.

CCP why can't we have queues for onlining/anchoring/unanchoring pos mods?

Ouch - primary reason I bought the faction tower IS LOWER FUEL COSTS. Now we are losing that? The larger run time was really irrelevant, except in that it came from lower fuel costs.

So, with this change (unless it gets modified) we lose the value of that?

I havent read all thread here, just looking into it.

Changes that I've just checked in for testing:

• Build time now 5 minutes
• Can build blocks in component assembly arrays
• Removed capacity bonus from faction towers
• Upped batch size to 40 and dropped volume to 5m3
• Increased fuel use in normal towers to 40/20/10
• Increased fuel use in tier 1 towers to 36/18/9 and tier 2 towers to 32/16/8
• Sov bonus should kick in for all towers, it will be rounding up though so keep that in mind with your calcs

quoting Greyscale for the Nth time cause of all the trolls too lazy to read...

This is good! My only question is when will the BPO's for the Fuel Blocks be seeded?

Well, it is mentioned in the first post on the thread.

I didn't read through all 50+ pages, do we have an answer to the following question:
When will the cube BPOs be seeded on TQ? I recon it should be at least 1-2 weeks before the actual system switch.

that's good

Seeing as there are 50+ pages here hard to believe any one else cares, however.. i agree with RK, and Devilmonkey..
now that standing have been applied to jump bridges.. Why would standing NOT be applied to cyno generator arrays?

though seeing as this was passed up multiple time with absolutely no response, I doubt anyone cares, but at least I have said my peace.