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) |
Brock Nelson
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:37:00 -
[871] - Quote
Quote: - 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 :)
I disagree with making the fuel block blueprint researchable. Why not make it so that there's no extras? Same as the POS Tower blueprint. The new proposed change are already reducing fuel cost overrall and now you want to make it so that it's even more with researched blueprint? |
Aluminy
Ethereal Wolves AAA Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:47:00 -
[872] - Quote
Balcor Mirage wrote:With this update we either have to move in an additional production facility or take more time transporting to an existing production facility. If the ice fuels were cut out of the bill of material, no such time consuming effort would be needed... and yes, I do play this game Aluminy.
obviously cause producing a 1 step product would be so hard yes? compared to the hours of calculations done to manage 100 towers...
quit complaining dude... the increased ability to use a tower to the fullest of its capabilities without the needed hassle and drawback is awesome... the reduction of actual strain to fuel towers and actually spend that time enjoying the game instead of fueling towers is epic... trust me the time you spend making this super ez one step product will greatly pale in comparison to 10 hours every 20 days to fuel towers... cry me a river
some people just cant get through life without complaining... |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. The Lostboys
133
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:50:00 -
[873] - Quote
Brock Nelson wrote:Quote: - 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 :) I disagree with making the fuel block blueprint researchable. Why not make it so that there's no extras? Same as the POS Tower blueprint. The new proposed change are already reducing fuel cost overrall and now you want to make it so that it's even more with researched blueprint?
Actually the other way around. The material costs in the blog are for a fully researched BPO. If you do no research, its higher.
CCP employees should never proclaim a feature to be awesome. Only subscribers should. Subscribers can never answer a question posed to CCP. Only CCP can. |
Brock Nelson
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:57:00 -
[874] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Brock Nelson wrote:Quote: - 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 :) I disagree with making the fuel block blueprint researchable. Why not make it so that there's no extras? Same as the POS Tower blueprint. The new proposed change are already reducing fuel cost overrall and now you want to make it so that it's even more with researched blueprint? Actually the other way around. The material costs in the blog are for a fully researched BPO. If you do no research, its higher.
Yeah someone just reminded me of that, haven't been feeling well and getting forgetful of the simple things in the game. |
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:12:00 -
[875] - Quote
CCP Greyscale [* wrote: 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). [/list]
Man, it's like you think we enjoy fuelling. Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed. |
Balcor Mirage
Eclipse Industrials Quantum Forge
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:13:00 -
[876] - Quote
Aluminy wrote:Balcor Mirage wrote:With this update we either have to move in an additional production facility or take more time transporting to an existing production facility. If the ice fuels were cut out of the bill of material, no such time consuming effort would be needed... and yes, I do play this game Aluminy.
obviously cause producing a 1 step product would be so hard yes? compared to the hours of calculations done to manage 100 towers... quit complaining dude... the increased ability to use a tower to the fullest of its capabilities without the needed hassle and drawback is awesome... the reduction of actual strain to fuel towers and actually spend that time enjoying the game instead of fueling towers is epic... trust me the time you spend making this super ez one step product will greatly pale in comparison to 10 hours every 20 days to fuel towers... cry me a river some people just cant get through life without complaining...
You have not thought through the logistics of the production step. Under the current system we have to move the material to the POS. Under the new proposal we have to move it to a production facility, do production... and then move it to the POS. If you're fine with that, good deal. I am showing you why I have a different opinion, not just a complain. I also provide an alternative. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD
167
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:14:00 -
[877] - Quote
I don't buy faction POS's because I don't have to fuel them as often...whoever told CCP this is a moron. I buy faction towers because they are CHEAPER to buy fuel for and pay for themselves over time. I say give faction towers more CPU/PGU to make up for this change. Allow them more defense. This would make me regret selling my faction POS.
Other than that...this is an awesome change.
To those of you Devs that have quoted and replied to the post about "the dead horse" and modular POS's...
If you get my hopes up like that and fail to deliver...it will be hunting season! I will come for you! In the friendliest most non-threatening way possible. Support our boobies!-áLINKY! |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
139
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:15:00 -
[878] - Quote
Doctor Ungabungas wrote:CCP Greyscale [* wrote: 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). [/list]
Man, it's like you think we enjoy fuelling. Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed.
this means that towers will hold exactly what they did as stated in the blog. faction tower fuel discount = faction tower fuel bay increase CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Echo Mande
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:16:00 -
[879] - Quote
Balcor Mirage wrote:
You have not thought through the logistics of the production step. Under the current system we have to move the material to the POS. Under the new proposal we have to move it to a production facility, do production... and then move it to the POS. If you're fine with that, good deal. I am showing you why I have a different opinion, not just a complain. I also provide an alternative.
CCP has said that the cubes can be built at POSses in ammo and component arrays. A component array has 1M m3 storage which is enough to hold the materials for about 4300 runs. That's enough fuel to run a large POS for 6 months or so and it'd be built in about two weeks as a single job. |
Aluminy
Ethereal Wolves AAA Citizens
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:17:00 -
[880] - Quote
Balcor Mirage wrote:You have not thought through the logistics of the production step. Under the current system we have to move the material to the POS. Under the new proposal we have to move it to a production facility, do production... and then move it to the POS. If you're fine with that, good deal. I am showing you why I have a different opinion, not just a complain. I also provide an alternative.
oh but you are so wrong... you move the fuel (preassembled) to your pos (like you just stated you do anyway) and put it together there... a component array / ammunition assembly array is light on fitting for a pos lol... no need to move it to a "production facility" move it to your pos like you always have in the past
even if you move it to a station... (or another pos in the system) just set up storage of fuel in a new location...
do NOT take ice fuels out of the combine... that would put massive calculations back into pos fueling >< which is what we are trying to get around to begin with? |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
270
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:37:00 -
[881] - Quote
15% & 20% are easily calculated as portions from 20. People who do manufacturing already handle numbers, so "tooany digits" is a silly excuse. The refuelling technicians (ie trained monkeys) only need to know, "it puts the lotion in the basket." just jam in as many cubes as will fit, job done. Good monkey!
Please, don't make numbers easier for our sake. That is terribly rude and condescending. Bad CCP! |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:39:00 -
[882] - Quote
I can live with the modified proposal. GJ CCP |
Chesticular Homicide
Boundless Invention
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:15:00 -
[883] - Quote
The modified stuff looks good, I think the amounts for the faction towers looks ok.
Only issue I have is the HW/LO amounts in the blocks, I think they're too high. No tower currently in place uses close to that much.
Different color blocks would be good too, but that bothers me less as I'll be making my own anyway... |
Kristen Andelare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:19:00 -
[884] - Quote
Thank you Greyscale for listening.
+5 for fuel block/pellet granularity, saving Sov and Faction tower bonuses. I can live with the slight loss of ice bonuses with the gain in PI fuel reduction. They will balance. I'll sell PI to make up for the loss in Ice efficiency.
+1 for reduced production time AND adding Component Arrays to the list of places one can assemble fuel blocks. Good Idea.
If BPOs are researchable, I will research them. If not, I won't need to. Probably they ought not be, for the sake of the WH dwellers.
+2 for making them reprocessable (I think I may have been one of the first in on that request).
Please give us colored blocks, you've not yet mentioned this. A short trip to the Art Department should suffice to nail that one down.
Supporting reduced Ice needs to build or somehow balancing ice mining in highsec seems a worthy endeavor. Please consider it for a future expansion. Or now if you can manage it.
Finally +20 for listening to the active player base on this topic, iterating and communicating clearly and politely not only your plans, but some of your reasoning. THIS is what we, as dedicated players of this great game, hope for from the Developers. |
Noriko Mai
277
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:24:00 -
[885] - Quote
Are the Fuel Blocks or the BPOs now on sisi? |
Letrange
Red Horizon Inc Cascade Probable
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:25:00 -
[886] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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
{Mode changeto="bitter vet"} Wow, CCP visibly listening to feedback... Who'd have thunk. {/Mode} More seriously, yep looks fine. Also don't listen to those who whine about the LO/HW changes. Those were always a pain to deal with for such a limited impact (I ran both research and combat towers and in the long run the differences came out in the wash and they added a massive amount of calculation overhead for very little isk savings. Besides Heavy water was never the issue - LO was the only thing that had a real impact on running costs. |
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:32:00 -
[887] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
- 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.
- 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.
I admire your efforts but just like I suspected, these "specialists" that you speak with are usually all part of large corporations. Actually you pretty much admitted it when you said "Obviously we didn't talk to enough small-scale users" when discussing faction towers.
Well just the same, you didn't talk to enough small-scale fuel providers who make their living by producing POS fuel through PI. You didn't consult with new players who are being pushed into high-sec and who will now find that their only way of making isk is being further nerfed for no good reason than to keep the POS fuelers happy.
If you had consulted them you would have heard from them that this is a ridiculous change. Why err on the side of screwing the little guy to the benefit of the big guy? I just don't get it.
Again, go ahead with all the changes you want. I just don't understand why you need to decrease the POS fuel need for small/medium POS. If it's just a matter of math, find another way to deal with it. Find ways around it. Anything is better than what you're planning on doing right now, which is to screw the little guy. The same little guys who are being screwed by the new COs changes and in the future by DUST. Why the heck would any of these new guys going into PI now? They'll just go back to high sec to run missions instead. Extremely disappointed and all in the name of saving us from a "gigantic production bottleneck"? Last time I checked the market adapts to bottlenecks. It's how it works. What you're doing is central planning of the economy, driving folks from one industry to another, for no apparent good reason.
I appreciate your response, but I'm still extremely disappointed and concerned for those new players who no one is listening to. |
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:35:00 -
[888] - Quote
Ahrman Vanaheim wrote:Edit: I'm not trying to be offensive when I say this, however perhaps this may be a good lesson that you need to speak to more than just your large alliance contacts when making decisions. Cost benefit equations for those with Trillion isk corp wallets are utterly different to the majority of players.
HUGE +1
Amen to that. Gawd. |
Grady Eltoren
Aviation Professionals for EVE
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:53:00 -
[889] - Quote
CCP Greyscale et al:
If you can believe it, I read through all 45 pages of this... ::takes a sip from his glass of Scotch::
With that said - seems like a good job. Thanks for listening to the rabble. If you have time though I have a few questions.
1) Will it be possible for the art Dept. to make these blocks color coded depending on race FTW? (added to reemphacize what so many others have brought up as a good idea).
2) I LOVE the idea of geting rid of PG/CPU and Liq. Ozone/Heavy Water calculations and treating it as 100% for simplicity...however don't you think it a tad unfair (as others have pointed out) that the numbers for the fuel blocks are based on 100%? I propose you drop the LOz/HW requirements for the blocks a tad to make up for the price nerf. Otherwise it just seems like a nerf instead of a fix. Make sense? Your thoughts?
3) Have you done a time analysis on building the blocks versus just doing the math? I bring this up because after having fueled many POS's for years I am just NOT seeing it. To me the math was never a problem; I just used one of the many free websites like chucker's out there. Now we have to build/wait/run an array/haul/move from array to array...etc This new process seems like it is saving time, and just curious as to who it is saving time for?
4) Final thought: I know this is loosely related to starbases, but for the Love of all that is right in the world....CAN YOU PLEASE MODIFY the Corp. Hangar Divisions to include more than just the 7 it allows now?!? PLEASE!? It would make life living out of a corp. hangar array so much easier and safer.
Thank you in advance |
Circumstantial Evidence
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:57:00 -
[890] - Quote
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. |
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Limitless Inc.
190
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:02:00 -
[891] - Quote
Some of these changes are nice. Others, quite frankly, just dumbing down the game even more. CCP showing again they want WoW in space.. this is a signature |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
86
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:09:00 -
[892] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote: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.
Best idea about POS Pellet diversification...
I love this idea DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=70361#post70361 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |
profundus fossura
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:40:00 -
[893] - Quote
Would it be possible to bring back the fuel saving for faction towers by varying the cycle time? for instance 75 minute instead of 60. The maths for working out the amount of pellets per month would still be easy enough and I guess most people will check the fuel levels by looking at time left in the manage window instead of counting fuel pellets.
If this is tied into the strontium use for reinforcement the bay size could be adjusted to give the same maximum RF period.
Would it also be possible to make the pellets in other pos assembly arrays as not everyone will have ammo array up but might have drone or ship one instead and might not wish to offline stuff to make room for ammo array.
|
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:53:00 -
[894] - Quote
The replies to this thread make me weep for the future if you guys are indicative of the average reading comprehension.
POS CYCLE TIMES CANNOT BE CHANGED WITH THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION
This is the same code that brought you such features as the ferrogel dupe, which was caused by an error in cycle processing. You don't want to poke that monkey.
Quit suggesting it; it ain't happening. The teased POS overhaul might have this capability, but its too fundamental a change to get into this update. |
Templewood Terrinsbar
AntiMacro Decimation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:55:00 -
[895] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote: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. Best idea about POS Pellet diversification... I love this idea
I like this too... HOWEVER... I think Gallente should be the Sphere's (In line with their stations and such), and the Amarr should be the pyramids...
|
TorTorden
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:10:00 -
[896] - Quote
Templewood Terrinsbar wrote: I love this idea
I like this too... HOWEVER... I think Gallente should be the Sphere's (In line with their stations and such), and the Amarr should be the pyramids...
Agreed on Gallente getting the sphere, the Amarr should however have a giant phallus |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
321
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:19:00 -
[897] - Quote
Grady Eltoren wrote: 4) Final thought: I know this is loosely related to starbases, but for the Love of all that is right in the world....CAN YOU PLEASE MODIFY the Corp. Hangar Divisions to include more than just the 7 it allows now?!? PLEASE!? It would make life living out of a corp. hangar array so much easier and safer.
Asked and answered in numerous other threads. Stuff like that touches the very complex and hard to modify corp UI code, which requires lots of developer time - so it will never be fixed until they have time to do a complete overhaul of the way the corp UI and roles work.
|
Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:22:00 -
[898] - Quote
sukee tsayah wrote:Again, go ahead with all the changes you want. I just don't understand why you need to decrease the POS fuel need for small/medium POS. If it's just a matter of math, find another way to deal with it. Find ways around it. Anything is better than what you're planning on doing right now, which is to screw the little guy. The same little guys who are being screwed by the new COs changes and in the future by DUST. Why the heck would any of these new guys going into PI now? They'll just go back to high sec to run missions instead. Extremely disappointed and all in the name of saving us from a "gigantic production bottleneck"? Last time I checked the market adapts to bottlenecks. It's how it works. What you're doing is central planning of the economy, driving folks from one industry to another, for no apparent good reason.
I appreciate your response, but I'm still extremely disappointed and concerned for those new players who no one is listening to.
Creating a bottleneck would likely play into the hands of those big alliances that you are worried about. If Robotics become the 'ultimate prize' then the most powerful will seek to monopolise its production. Like we all saw with Tech moons. Tech is a bottleneck in T2 production, so certain groups set out to seize as many tech moons as they could across the map.
If Robotics became a key bottleneck, we'd likely see a greater effort being made to seize control over plasma planets. Distribute the value of resources more evenly however, and we should see fewer monopolies emerging. http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:32:00 -
[899] - Quote
Ugleb wrote:sukee tsayah wrote:Again, go ahead with all the changes you want. I just don't understand why you need to decrease the POS fuel need for small/medium POS. If it's just a matter of math, find another way to deal with it. Find ways around it. Anything is better than what you're planning on doing right now, which is to screw the little guy. The same little guys who are being screwed by the new COs changes and in the future by DUST. Why the heck would any of these new guys going into PI now? They'll just go back to high sec to run missions instead. Extremely disappointed and all in the name of saving us from a "gigantic production bottleneck"? Last time I checked the market adapts to bottlenecks. It's how it works. What you're doing is central planning of the economy, driving folks from one industry to another, for no apparent good reason.
I appreciate your response, but I'm still extremely disappointed and concerned for those new players who no one is listening to. Creating a bottleneck would likely play into the hands of those big alliances that you are worried about. If Robotics become the 'ultimate prize' then the most powerful will seek to monopolise its production. Like we all saw with Tech moons. Tech is a bottleneck in T2 production, so certain groups set out to seize as many tech moons as they could across the map. If Robotics became a key bottleneck, we'd likely see a greater effort being made to seize control over plasma planets. Distribute the value of resources more evenly however, and we should see fewer monopolies emerging.
That's fallacy of misleading vividness. Your experience with tech moons is keeping you from thinking that the market can adapt to higher demand for robotics. Would love to argue further, but your logic is simply not sound.
CCP is artificially lowering the demand for robotics. I'm advocating for the opposite. It's not rocket science.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1480
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:54:00 -
[900] - Quote
Ugleb wrote:sukee tsayah wrote:Again, go ahead with all the changes you want. I just don't understand why you need to decrease the POS fuel need for small/medium POS. If it's just a matter of math, find another way to deal with it. Find ways around it. Anything is better than what you're planning on doing right now, which is to screw the little guy. The same little guys who are being screwed by the new COs changes and in the future by DUST. Why the heck would any of these new guys going into PI now? They'll just go back to high sec to run missions instead. Extremely disappointed and all in the name of saving us from a "gigantic production bottleneck"? Last time I checked the market adapts to bottlenecks. It's how it works. What you're doing is central planning of the economy, driving folks from one industry to another, for no apparent good reason.
I appreciate your response, but I'm still extremely disappointed and concerned for those new players who no one is listening to. Creating a bottleneck would likely play into the hands of those big alliances that you are worried about. If Robotics become the 'ultimate prize' then the most powerful will seek to monopolise its production. Like we all saw with Tech moons. Tech is a bottleneck in T2 production, so certain groups set out to seize as many tech moons as they could across the map. If Robotics became a key bottleneck, we'd likely see a greater effort being made to seize control over plasma planets. Distribute the value of resources more evenly however, and we should see fewer monopolies emerging.
pi isn't moonmats and nothing is comparable between the two |
|
|
|
|
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 |