Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 .. 39 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Black Dranzer
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:53:00 -
[571] - Quote
Well I don't touch starbases at all, but hey, good show never the less. |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:55:00 -
[572] - Quote
Faelyn L'Darcassan wrote:Icarus Helia wrote:Faelyn L'Darcassan wrote:Also, passing costs does not remove the hassle of having more to do, in this case more ozone/water to buy, use, build, etc. so you should charge more to make it. you are seriously short sighted if you see only increased hassle for you, and not reduced hassle for the people who have to fuel thousands upon thousands of poses all over eve when they can just buy fuel blocks from a mass producer, or centralize their own production. If you don't see that then you should see an opportunity to get in early on a new industry. If you don't see that then you need to think a lot harder about the scale of eve before posting. I see all of that too, just need to point out that it is not the only side of the story. Also fueling thousands of POSes should be a hassle, at least if it is done by few people. While a new market and new opportunities will be created, this effectively increases prices and thus inflation. I do not consider that a good thing as it basically devalues all savings people have.
It will be fine. The sky is not falling. will the sales cost of pos fuel pellets be higher than the current equal fuel cost? of course, that is the price you pay for the convenience. otherwise you should anchor an ammo assembly array and churn out some fuel, and that gives you something to sell. this is why homes have kitchens - because most people cant afford to just go buy ready to eat food every day, or own a farm. if you anchor an array - you will likely see no practical change to your cash flow, or the overall process except having a small once a month step added. don't pee in everyone else's cheerios just because you don't like it. |
Ore Grinder
Star-Gate Command
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:02:00 -
[573] - Quote
Maaxeru wrote:
Letting all blues use all your JBs . . . . nice.
Letting all blues use all your JBs and not giving them some way to fuel the JB . . . . not nice.
Don't let them take fuel out or see how much is in there, but create either a setting that actually allows them to voluntarily fuel the bridge, OR, put on a setting that makes them (or anyone, even if in your Aliance) pay for their jump in liquid ozone. [/i]
Why not just charge isk for using jump bridges? Kind of like using your debit card to pay for a ferry ticket. Alliances can charge what they want this way. They can charge a huge amount if they don't want traffic pouring through, or even wave the fees entirely for +10 blues. Maybe even allow neuts to use it for a HUGE fee? This could certainly be profitable in freeport situations.
To offset this the fuel bays for jump bridges should be absolutely massive with perhaps some reserve LO for +10 traffic on a ratio set by the alliance. |
Kratar Mirat
The Unnamed. Novum Militis ExParte
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:10:00 -
[574] - Quote
The faction towers using more fuel makes wormhole refueling logistics even more difficult.
Why not create a fifth fuel block... A faction fuel block which requires slightly less materials and is only 40m3, but is only usable in faction towers? Or even a faction "fuel block compression" system that can shrink fuel blocks, which can then only be used in faction towers?
Help prevent the extra freighter load the increased fuel costs will cause. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
30
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:13:00 -
[575] - Quote
Tercius wrote:Doctor Ungabungas wrote: WH corps can put up their own ammo arrays and keep doing what they're doing. Or they can outsource it to empire pubbies and just raise their prices.
Still, a WH corp, that imports ONLY its ice products will have to then install the ammo array if it does not have one, and add a step to the process. So that is not "keeps doing" at all. Its more expsense and work. Outsourcing is not necesarily the answer, even though it seems to be about your only answer.
This is true of anyone who runs a pos and also makes some or all of their fuel via PI or ice mining. It just adds a step. You still have to haul everything to the pos or a station and make the fuel.
The only benefit is for those who just buy all of their fuel from the market. They now can just buy fuel pellets. Everyone else still needs to haul each item and then add a step.
At least have the option. Let me put the individual fuels in OR pellets. |
Tahna Rouspel
BWE Special Forces
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:14:00 -
[576] - Quote
Just a crazy idea,
it would be amusing if Fuel Blocks exploded in a spectacular fashion when the ship transporting them was destroyed. I'm sure we can all enjoy a nice firework. |
Sharlandra
404 File Not Found
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:14:00 -
[577] - Quote
Not sure if this topic was touched on, but I feel that faction towers should take less fuel block usage, maybe 1/2 or 1 block less than the non-faction variation, why else spend loads of isk on a fancy tower only to have a larger bay, doesn't really help smaller corps that live out of a single or very few POS's. The main reason somone would buy a faction tower, especially for a group that live in W-space, is that you don't have to re-fuel the Tower as much, thus reducing the number of trips need to take to K-space to get the Ice fuel for the block. Just somthing I tohught I should point out, and sorry if this had already been discussed. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:20:00 -
[578] - Quote
LOVE what's going on in this blog.
My only suggestions are:
1. When you tie JB to POS aggression, take a quick look at the POS aggro mechanics since they've been prone to shooting people they shouldn't. This might affect the jump bridges post-change.
2. I think the faction tower bonus removal leaves a lot to be desired. Definitely think cost is a big factor for small/medium sized corps and alliances running these towers. It will also affect reaction profitability.
www.noirmercs.com Now Recruiting |
Jiska Ensa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:21:00 -
[579] - Quote
Given the volume has now considerbly gone up (I think) can we at least get the ability to transport them in an orca's ore hold? They look rather blocky and space-worthy... |
Momoro
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:25:00 -
[580] - Quote
Raid'En wrote:stocks of heavy water on high sec systems of all regions of new eden have been bought and relisted at 100-200 isk / unit...
THIS
Question 1: Why was heavy water so cheap to begin with? Question 1a: Is there an oversupply of heavy water? Question 1b: Is powergrid used infrequently?
Question 2: Should heavy water be worth more? Question 2a: What effect would more expensive heavy water have? Question 2b: Would this actually raise the cost of running a POS or would other prices be depressed?
This issue is pushing me to now support leaving heavy water and liquid ozone out of the fuel blocks. It simply changes the ice economy too drastically. I think the objective of these changes should be to simplify pos fueling with minimal change to current game mechanics.
Summary of my positions (highest to lowest priority)
1. I would prefer a change that affects the current economy minimally. 2. Do not include liquid ozone / heavy water in the blocks. Keep that separate for now due to economic issues) 3. Increase granularity of fuel blocks to 100/hour for normal large POSes in order to support bonuses and make moving blocks in small ships easier. 4. Include a limited fuel block manufacturing facility in the control tower. 4a. Manufacturing facility would be better than nothing, but a refining array type mechanism would be better (no BPO, no manufacturing slot) 4b. Limited = makes blocks just a bit faster than needed for itself but not for other control towers 5. I will accept a less than ideal change* as long as this is iterated.
* Less than ideal = not include lowest priority and harder to implement points above (e.g. no manufacturing facility) |
|
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
100
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:29:00 -
[581] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote: If you had maintained a stockpile, you could just ride out a short-term price spike and buy again when prices inevitably fall. i never said i didn't had a stock.
i just stated a fact : this blog put every market manipulator on action on heavy water. which means lots of guys consider this change will be really important on this market. |
Teclador
Stardust Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:39:00 -
[582] - Quote
Dear CCP Greyscale,
after reading you Dev Blog on the planned changes to the Starbase System, some of these changes we waiting ages for but some could be really better.
1. Using Jump Bridges Currently you need an Password and no shoot configuration to use a Jump Bridge.
Better, adding more and clearly defined Access Roles to the Structures / Access tab in the POS Manager Menu. You have here currently View, Take and Use Rows, but Use is quit not in use.
Use Roles could be:
- Corporation
- Alliance
- Standing (+5)
- Standing (+10)
(Keep in Mind that refueling the JB, must be also possible by these Groups, make the POS Manager live easier)
2. Passing Force Field The Old System with Password is absolute worthless, but with some changes it could be more Flexible too.
Force Field Pass through Options:
- Corporation
- Alliance
- Standing (+5)
- Standing (+10)
- * Extra Check box for extra Password security
3. Using Defense installations (Guns, Ewar, etc.): Use Roles could be:
- Corporation
- Alliance
- Standing (+5)
- Standing (+10)
(Keep in Mind that refueling, must be also possible by these Groups, make the POS Manager live easier)
4. Improvements to other installation like Corporate Hangar, Ship Maintenance Array, Silos, (Adv.) Mobile Laboratories are also in bitter need, not only in fact of the access politics to them. (Repackage of Items)
5. Tower Setup Password security, so that not everyone can change the settings to an tower with only the right role.
6. Install Patterns for easier dropping and Anchoring new Towers automatically, with save Functionality like Ship Fittings.
I Hope i could give you some other good impressions what can be changed to the Starbase System, to make our Eve live more secure and more flexible, in special to the POS Managers out there . |
Kali Etain
Red Cap Industries
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:42:00 -
[583] - Quote
I know it's been said, and probably much more eloquently than I'm capable of, but the bonus to faction towers needs to be better than what has been proposed. You've basically made them obsolete with this change, although the idea behind the change is no less than awesome. In my not so infinite wisdom, I'm not sure why the longer cycle time would be a bad idea (and no, I haven't read through 30 pages of posts to see if it hasn't been rationalized, I'll probably do that SOON).
All in all, good change, just tweak the faction tower bonus a bit. |
Ulair Memmet
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:46:00 -
[584] - Quote
I like the idea in general but i also agree with some objections/ideas made here and added some of my own:
Fuel blocks
- Fuel blocks could be produced in a volume of 100. This way faction towers don't need to loose their bonus. It also gives you more flexibility for future expansions or ideas.
- The fact, that you have an additional production step to actually make fuel is inconvenient. Especially for WH-corps. Maybe a cheap "fuel production array" just for assembling fuel blocks? I mean with really very low power/cpu requirements so that noone really has to care about them. Maybe add a function to directly move fuel to the tower on job completion.
- The icons are easily confused and in general don't make sense. I mean are all the fuel parts being mixed together to a mystical blue fluid? I guess that is not important though. But a better distinctness would be nice.
- Could this change have unpleasant effects on ice mining and the market?
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
307
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:47:00 -
[585] - Quote
Raid'En wrote:Scrapyard Bob wrote: If you had maintained a stockpile, you could just ride out a short-term price spike and buy again when prices inevitably fall. i never said i didn't had a stock. i just stated a fact : this blog put every market manipulator on action on heavy water. which means lots of guys consider this change will be really important on this market.
Speculators always do this - heck, I've tossed some of my stockpile up on the market at prices under the speculators. If it sells, great, I made a quick few million ISK. If not, well then I'll slowly lower it back down to a price where it does sell. Others will end up doing the same (putting stockpiles on the market) - people will rush out and mine ice because it suddenly looks like a better idea then it was last week.
In a week or three, reality will set in, the speculators will get tired of nothing actually selling, more and more stock will be put up as sell orders, the undercutting will begin in earnest, and prices will end up somewhere far below what the speculators wanted.
Look at the price history of things like Mechanical Parts or Robotics - volume jumped about 10-12 days ago when the POCO blog came out. Prices are already starting to fall back down to earth.
|
Shanghilo
Genetic Research
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:48:00 -
[586] - Quote
Momoro wrote:Raid'En wrote:stocks of heavy water on high sec systems of all regions of new eden have been bought and relisted at 100-200 isk / unit... THIS Question 1: Why was heavy water so cheap to begin with? Question 1a: Is there an oversupply of heavy water? Question 1b: Is powergrid used infrequently? Question 2: Should heavy water be worth more? Question 2a: What effect would more expensive heavy water have? Question 2b: Would this actually raise the cost of running a POS or would other prices be depressed? This issue is pushing me to now support leaving heavy water and liquid ozone out of the fuel blocks. It simply changes the ice economy too drastically. I think the objective of these changes should be to simplify pos fueling with minimal change to current game mechanics. Summary of my positions (highest to lowest priority)
1. I would prefer a change that affects the current economy minimally. 2. Do not include liquid ozone / heavy water in the blocks. Keep that separate for now due to economic issues) 3. Increase granularity of fuel blocks to 100/hour for normal large POSes in order to support bonuses and make moving blocks in small ships easier. 4. Include a limited fuel block manufacturing facility in the control tower. 4a. Manufacturing facility would be better than nothing, but a refining array type mechanism would be better (no BPO, no manufacturing slot) 4b. Limited = makes blocks just a bit faster than needed for itself but not for other control towers 5. I will accept a less than ideal change* as long as this is iterated. * Less than ideal = not include lowest priority and harder to implement points above (e.g. no manufacturing facility)
There Also lies the ISSUE with IceRefine Ratios,,,, when you simplify you also throw in a new Balance
Agree that Ozone and HW need to be sepeate items not included in the block
If inclued,, then Ice Refine ratos also need to be adjusted,
so then determine the offset ballance,, so perhap the intent is to use blocks and adjust loading with the extra capacty
Nurfing the direct CPU and Grid will also affect and increased demand load on Ozone and HW and Nurf Isotopes because the Refined Ratios are not proportionat with the Ice Refne Ratios
If Not ; So how do you purge this issue - why do I need to fuel Grid Power and CPU if not needed.
so if Ice refine ratios do not ballance with Blocks then all this simplification is Moot. Else remove HW and Ozone from Blocks |
Momoro
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:58:00 -
[587] - Quote
Here is another pie in the sky idea. There seems to be some current mechanics that are getting in the way of simplifying pos fuel (bonuses, manufacturing, null / wormhole logistics). Instead of introducing a sweeping change and immediately getting rid of the old system, how about have the new system be opt in only.
In order to opt in, you would have to install a new Pellet Fueling Firmware (script, reaction, whatever). The reaction is removable (when offline?). By default all towers use the current fueling mechanics.
Going a bit farther (perhaps too far): Even better (maybe?), get rid of the different tower types and have tower function depend solely on the installed POS Firmware. Want more silo storage space? Install the Large Gallente Starbase firmware. Want to upgrade your POS? Install the Large Serpentis Starbase firmware. Goons attacking Gallente racial isotope? Switch to the Large Caldari Starbase firmware. Want to change the size of your tower? Switch to the Small Caldari Starbase firmware.
The size changing thing might be going too far ... but an easier way to upsize and downsize the POS might be good. Currently all the racial control towers use the same components... so just make them the same. As for why the appearance changes when you install new firmware, I'm sure we can come up with some story about nanites.
So how about it guys? Opt in only?
Roll Out Guide
- Introduce removable fuel pellet firmware to opt into new fuel system.
(You can screw up the fuel system while not making people unhappy. People will vote by opting in. Iterate until everyone wants to opt-in)
- Once an overwhelming majority (90%) opts-in because you have made the old system obsolete for most people (address #581 and other suggestions), get rid of the old system.
- Create a single control tower type for each size of which the function depends on the firmware.
- Allow control towers to scale dynamically.
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
307
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:03:00 -
[588] - Quote
Momoro wrote:Raid'En wrote:stocks of heavy water on high sec systems of all regions of new eden have been bought and relisted at 100-200 isk / unit... THIS Question 1: Why was heavy water so cheap to begin with? Question 1a: Is there an oversupply of heavy water? Question 1b: Is powergrid used infrequently? Question 2: Should heavy water be worth more? Question 2a: What effect would more expensive heavy water have? Question 2b: Would this actually raise the cost of running a POS or would other prices be depressed?
Heavy water is basically a by-product of the hi-sec ice refine process. Because hi-sec ice is lacking in Liquid Ozone, you have to mine extra blocks of hi-sec ice in order to get enough Isotopes to keep a POS tower running each month. Since HW isn't used for anything else, it gets thrown up on the market for whatever price you can get for it.
http://eve-marketdata.com/price_check.php?step=Show&type_id=16272&type=history®ion_id=10000002
In hi-sec towers, PG is frequently the least-used attribute because most hi-sec towers are research towers. The bottleneck on a research tower is CPU from the labs. The only time that PG gets maxed out is if defensive batteries are put online to deal with a threat. Lo-sec / null-sec towers, are probably more balanced due to the need to keep defenses online at all times.
Since CPU usage drives Heavy Water usage, the amount of HW consumed by hi-sec towers really isn't going to change much. It might impact lo-sec / null-sec towers a bit more because those are more often capped out by PG (Liquid Ozone).
The bigger issue is going to be the impact on Liquid Ozone (which is a far more expensive ingredient per month already). There, you might see a bit of a price correction upwards and the fuel savings from the fuel pellet changes (less of certain types of fuels) might get wiped out by higher LiqOz prices. Most hi-sec towers probably had about half of their PG in use (so about 17M in LiqOz/mo for a large) and that is going to now cost them a full 34M/mo. |
Vikarion
State Trade Consortium
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:08:00 -
[589] - Quote
You guys (CCP) are awesome. I might actually get back into T2 manufacturing. Much love! |
Mary Mercer
King Wholesaling
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:11:00 -
[590] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote: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.
Funny, I was thinking it builds way to fast. |
|
Mary Mercer
King Wholesaling
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:14:00 -
[591] - Quote
Raziphan Rebular wrote:Jack Dant wrote: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. If you build it they will come, or something like that. But ya I don't see any issue with another industry item. Some POS owners simply won't want to deal with building their own fuel blocks. I am slightly worried about the removal of the fuel consumption benefit of the faction towers. There has to be plenty of people out there who bit the bullet and bought a faction tower with the idea that over time the increased initial cost would pay for itself in lower fuel usage.
Lets see the pirates always say "There is no safe spot in eve" any time the idea of making miners tougher comes up. In this case, I'd just like to say, "There is no safe investment in Eve." :P |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir. Unforgiving.
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:15:00 -
[592] - Quote
I like this.
I don't like two things:
1) Fuel Block Size/consumption. If the math sucks to have 10 blocks per hour because you don't/can't/won't do ticks on 6 minutes, shame on you. This introduces better variance and solves problems like sov bonuses and the one below:
2) Faction Towers. I haven't stood one of these up in a while, but you are talking about something that costs (as far as I can tell) about 2x the cost of a standard tower, and the big bonus is that it burns less fuel, which means the cost is recouped at some point. So now, you want to make them have a larger fuel bay? This is stupid. Reduce the size of the block and adjust your tick counts to burn a block every 6 minutes on standard towers, and 10 minutes on Faction Towers. Done (although the math might need work to keep Faction Towers inline with Sov bonuses).
Initially I had issues with the blocks being racially structured, but then I realized that keeping the isotopes separate makes a huge hauling/logistics mess stay in place. Maybe the trick is to have the racial blocks, but not integrate the Ozone and Heavy Water so the CPU/PG fluctuations can still be accounted for? |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:23:00 -
[593] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:I like this.
I don't like two things:
1) Fuel Block Size/consumption. If the math sucks to have 10 blocks per hour because you don't/can't/won't do ticks on 6 minutes, shame on you. This introduces better variance and solves problems like sov bonuses and the one below:
2) Faction Towers. I haven't stood one of these up in a while, but you are talking about something that costs (as far as I can tell) about 2x the cost of a standard tower, and the big bonus is that it burns less fuel, which means the cost is recouped at some point. So now, you want to make them have a larger fuel bay? This is stupid. Reduce the size of the block and adjust your tick counts to burn a block every 6 minutes on standard towers, and 10 minutes on Faction Towers. Done (although the math might need work to keep Faction Towers inline with Sov bonuses).
Initially I had issues with the blocks being racially structured, but then I realized that keeping the isotopes separate makes a huge hauling/logistics mess stay in place. Maybe the trick is to have the racial blocks, but not integrate the Ozone and Heavy Water so the CPU/PG fluctuations can still be accounted for?
I fully endorse this with the exception that i think the simplest solution is still pellet granularity. |
Evanda Char
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:24:00 -
[594] - Quote
I must be missing something. There seems to be a slight adjustment in the amount of materials, but an extra step in producing the fuel which tends to mean more hauling. And without the faction tower fuel reduction, and the ability to drop fuel consumption by leaving grid/cpu unused, that means even more hauling... The maths is simpler once you've got the blocks but I have a tool for that.
What am I not seeing that has everyone happy? |
Mary Mercer
King Wholesaling
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:25:00 -
[595] - Quote
Clama wrote:Could we please have a fuel bonus for Faction tower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ |
Tony Ritz
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:26:00 -
[596] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paw_2EJBzFs&NR=1
|
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:27:00 -
[597] - Quote
Evanda Char wrote:I must be missing something. There seems to be a slight adjustment in the amount of materials, but an extra step in producing the fuel which tends to mean more hauling. And without the faction tower fuel reduction, and the ability to drop fuel consumption by leaving grid/cpu unused, that means even more hauling... The maths is simpler once you've got the blocks but I have a tool for that.
What am I not seeing that has everyone happy?
The fact you can be lazy now and have people that actually want to bother producing the fuel bother with that while you just buy the cubes off the market, I guess? GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? | [topic=6504]EVE API?[/topic] | [topic=6501]Cache?[/topic] |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:27:00 -
[598] - Quote
Would be nice though to be able to be also to fuel the tower the old fashion way as some times you are just rying to gab components from corners of the Constilation to keep the POS running and may want to skip the production process. I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Evanda Char
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:32:00 -
[599] - Quote
Entity wrote:Evanda Char wrote:I must be missing something. There seems to be a slight adjustment in the amount of materials, but an extra step in producing the fuel which tends to mean more hauling. And without the faction tower fuel reduction, and the ability to drop fuel consumption by leaving grid/cpu unused, that means even more hauling... The maths is simpler once you've got the blocks but I have a tool for that.
What am I not seeing that has everyone happy? The fact you can be lazy now and have people that actually want to bother producing the fuel bother with that while you just buy the cubes off the market, I guess?
And if I don't want to be lazy I get to play "fun with the build queues I built my tower to get past in the first place"...? |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
308
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:33:00 -
[600] - Quote
Evanda Char wrote:I must be missing something. There seems to be a slight adjustment in the amount of materials, but an extra step in producing the fuel which tends to mean more hauling. And without the faction tower fuel reduction, and the ability to drop fuel consumption by leaving grid/cpu unused, that means even more hauling... The maths is simpler once you've got the blocks but I have a tool for that.
What am I not seeing that has everyone happy?
Being able to just have one central stockpile of the raw materials hooked up to a factory line with the BPO. Combined with being able to fill an industrial ship with just fuel pellets to the brim and visit a few towers, filling them up to the brim without any tedious track of of which tower uses what amounts per hour. Just drag-n-drop until you run out of pellets and have to go back for more.
For anyone who fuels more then a handful of towers, the second part of that paragraph is where the joy will come from.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 .. 39 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |