| 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) |

Lucid Phoenix
Infidel Armaments
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:59:00 -
[961] - Quote
Jenn Makanen wrote:Lucid Phoenix wrote:I think modifying the faction towers to use the same fuel as normal towers is ridicilous. The whole point of investing in one of the faction towers is reduced fuel costs, so it will pay for itself.
Now I understand that in trying to simplify the game, and making the fuel costs more simplistic, I get that. However a bigger fuel bay, isn't going to do it in so far as a fair trade off.
What I propose is this, and incremental increase in the powergrid/cpu output for the tier 1/tier 2 towers, thereby retaining some of the 'fuel savings', and allowing the simplization of the fuel situation at the same time.
Please give this idea serious thought, as it would only be fair to reap some ACTUAL benefit to faction towers people paid their hard earned isk for.
Thank you
Lucid Phoenix
Infidel Armaments Learn to read. It's already changed.
Sorry, forgot the patch was already out |

bornaa
GRiD.
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 23:00:00 -
[962] - Quote
Sassums wrote:There still has been no response on the issue of faction towers no longer dropping.
If we are fixing and working on the POS system, why not fix this issue as well.
Please... can we get response on this? Whats with dropping of faction tower BPCs??? is that going to be implemented again or not????? |

vaspucci
Fleet of Doom Ushra'Khan
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 23:20:00 -
[963] - Quote
Instead of shortening the onlining times, why not implement an onlining queue. The problem with the current system is that you have to stay at the POS to online each successive mod. If you could quickly anchor them, then queue them to to come online it would:
1) Eliminate the need to camp at a POS for a week setting it up 2) Not create a situation where it's possible to quickly online new mods when an attacking fleet shows up.
And it's not like you guys don't have code to handle queuing stuff. |

True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:43:00 -
[964] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Could the Rorqual's compression system be allowed to manufacture fuel cubes?
That, is an awesome request. |

Xander Hunt
Dead Rats Tell No Tales
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:46:00 -
[965] - Quote
I spoke with one of my corp mates as to why the change even is HAPPENING. I can somewhat now understand that for a huge corp/alliance this COULD save time to fuel the many POS's, but, in the same stroke, also seems that there are a few additional steps which, arguably, can be skipped depending if you want to pay attention to the balance on cost vs time.
Even though I'm more in the know than I was an hour ago about why this is being done, the thing I REALLY don't like is the fact that we have to use a BPO to manufacture cubes. We have structures in PI that we feed materials to it, and it spits out the resulting item based on the two input materials. So why can't we do something similar for the cubes?
The mechanic would work in such a way that there'd be enough room in a bay to feed the structure enough mats to produce whatever cube we configure it for. It then takes the mats and hourly will take the appropriate chunk of raw mats and make X number of cubes per hour. In high sec, there would be a "tax" of sorts or something like that. In low/null, no tax, 100% efficiency, etc.
Where the mechanic would work would either be at a POS or on a planet, or both.
At a POS, you'd get two bays. One for the input items (All 8 mats needed to make the cube) and then another where the cubes get sent out. From there, it'd be a manual process to take the items from the new structure to the towers fuel bay.
The PI option would work where you'd have to feed the structure via landing pad. The inputs would be the same, and taxes would apply again.
Thoughts? |

Raven Kahn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:11:00 -
[966] - Quote
can you make the cyno generators work the same as the jump bridges please.
Thanks, RK |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:54:00 -
[967] - Quote
Leaving the POCO aside, you believe the demand for PI products will drop due to reduced demand and that will hurt new players as PI is an easy for of income to get into, correct?
If I may ask, is it not possible that the simplification of fuel management could lead to more people having towers and the increased demand keeping prices up? Is there a reason PI mats wouldn't be bought by people producing fuel? Is the difference in fuel consumption enough to severely reduce demand for the PI goods? |

True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 02:00:00 -
[968] - Quote
Xander Hunt wrote:I spoke with one of my corp mates as to why the change even is HAPPENING. I can somewhat now understand that for a huge corp/alliance this COULD save time to fuel the many POS's, but, in the same stroke, also seems that there are a few additional steps which, arguably, can be skipped depending if you want to pay attention to the balance on cost vs time.
Even though I'm more in the know than I was an hour ago about why this is being done, the thing I REALLY don't like is the fact that we have to use a BPO to manufacture cubes. We have structures in PI that we feed materials to it, and it spits out the resulting item based on the two input materials. So why can't we do something similar for the cubes?
The mechanic would work in such a way that there'd be enough room in a bay to feed the structure enough mats to produce whatever cube we configure it for. It then takes the mats and hourly will take the appropriate chunk of raw mats and make X number of cubes per hour. In high sec, there would be a "tax" of sorts or something like that. In low/null, no tax, 100% efficiency, etc.
Where the mechanic would work would either be at a POS or on a planet, or both.
At a POS, you'd get two bays. One for the input items (All 8 mats needed to make the cube) and then another where the cubes get sent out. From there, it'd be a manual process to take the items from the new structure to the towers fuel bay.
The PI option would work where you'd have to feed the structure via landing pad. The inputs would be the same, and taxes would apply again.
Thoughts?
From the perspective of someone who has seen both sides of the coin, I can say that these changes (including the revisions) are extremely positive ones.
Whilst a few people have jumped in to point out that technically, this change actually makes things even 'more' complex is true, it does make life easier and more fun, I'll give two examples
Running 20 towers When it came to refueling them, I loaded up our special corporation website which keeps track of all our towers, including their PG/CPU usage, I would then ping the API to get the current fuel volumes in our first 4 towers nearby and now know how much of every fuel type I need in order to top them all up to maximum.
I then sit there and copy these over from our fuel reserves until my Rorqual/Anshar is full, then head off to the towers.
When I get to the towers, I have to re-go through the math and copy the correct amounts of each fuel type into each of the towers.
with the new system... I open the corp hanger, drop a ton of pellets into my hanger, undock and go fuel towers.
For the long term organisation, we just ensure we keep a steady production of pellets going and everything is great.
|

Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 02:06:00 -
[969] - Quote
Time for the original Northern Coalition to return. Those guys were good for business.
These new guys may be good at pvp, but they fail at making the trains run on time. MOAR CARE BEAR PLEASE!
|

sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 02:41:00 -
[970] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Leaving the POCO aside, you believe the demand for PI products will drop due to reduced demand and that will hurt new players as PI is an easy for of income to get into, correct? If I may ask, is it not possible that the simplification of fuel management could lead to more people having towers and the increased demand keeping prices up? Is there a reason PI mats wouldn't be bought by people producing fuel? Is the difference in fuel consumption enough to severely reduce demand for the PI goods?
I'm glad you asked these questions.
It's unwise and inconsistent to leave POCO aside, because what I'm talking about is an overall trend of nerfing PI, which hurts small corps and new players, to the benefit of the big corps and old players. That's the overall theme of all this.
Aside from that, if you want to separate the two, then yes, the artificially reduced demand for PI fuel will hurt new players, because as you said, PI is an easy source of income to get into when you're new to the game.
You asked if it's possible that the simplification of fuel management could lead to more people having towers, which would increase demand. The answer is yes, of course it's possible, but that's only an indirect possibility. The artificially reduced demand for PI fuel on the other hand, is not. That is a direct consequence of the change.
PI mats would of course continue to be bought by people producing fuel, but at a lower rate than they are right now due to the artificially induced decreased demand for the fuel.
Lastly, you asked if the fuel consumption is enough to severely reduce the demand. First of all, that's not the point. Either you artificially change supply/demand or you don't. By which rate is only of secondary importance. Demand will be reduced not because players are reacting to supply/demand, but because CCP is telling them they no longer need as much fuel as they did before.
|

Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
331
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 02:44:00 -
[971] - Quote
True Sight wrote: From the perspective of someone who has seen both sides of the coin, I can say that these changes (including the revisions) are extremely positive ones.
Whilst a few people have jumped in to point out that technically, this change actually makes things even 'more' complex is true, it does make life easier and more fun, I'll give two examples
Running 20 towers When it came to refueling them, I loaded up our special corporation website which keeps track of all our towers, including their PG/CPU usage, I would then ping the API to get the current fuel volumes in our first 4 towers nearby and now know how much of every fuel type I need in order to top them all up to maximum.
I then sit there and copy these over from our fuel reserves until my Rorqual/Anshar is full, then head off to the towers.
When I get to the towers, I have to re-go through the math and copy the correct amounts of each fuel type into each of the towers.
with the new system... I open the corp hanger, drop a ton of pellets into my hanger, undock and go fuel towers.
For the long term organisation, we just ensure we keep a steady production of pellets going and everything is great.
Even for 2+ towers, this suddenly makes logistics a lot easier.
And I think most of us would prefer smaller, more dense, fuel pellets over larger fuel bays in the towers. Even if it allows some magical compression/decompression to the tune of 20-30%. That would really make the change a win-win in all directions in exchange for doing manufacture time. Maybe make them only return 90-95% of the inputs when re-processed, even with perfect skills and the proper reprocessing plant, to balance out the smaller cube size. |

Dwarfageddon
Squirrels with Big Nuts
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 03:31:00 -
[972] - Quote
Has anyone even noticed the initial numbers per a block and the fact that it uses 4 of those an HOUR!!? The following is use-age numbers for large towers based on the original posted figures per a block.
The fuel increase is exponentially higher per a pos:
----This for a 30 day run cycle for one POS.. ----
(Assumes no sov and no sov bonuses)
432,000 Heavy water 432,000 Liquid Ozone 1,152,000 Isotopes 57,600 Oxygen 23040 Coolant 11,520 Enriched Uranium 11,520 Mechanical Parts 2880 Robotics
--------------------------------------------------------------- (Following assumes you are like some/most Eve POS owners who have far too many to actually mine/make all this crap.) Current estimated prices for this one month bucket of fuel to power the new CCP built Porche (Caldari) Cayenne SUV:
Heavy Water 10,800,000 Liquid Ozone 159,408,000 Heavy Water 10,800,000 Robotics 204,4800,000 Nitrogen Isotopes, 622,080,000 Coolant 163,584,000 Mechanical Parts 92,160,000 Enriched Uranium 132,250,000 (Oxygen cost is deprecated due to it being easy to obtain)
Congratulations, you are now the proud owner of a SUV with rich leather interior, still has that new POS smell and gets a whole .000000001 miles per a gallon, it goes REALLY fast though! O.K. now some serious bits here that dont involve hurling sharp pointy objects and four letter invective laced hate mails at the people who are making the changes I know you guys get plenty of that already.
My .2 isk on this change is this:
This will wipe out or bankrupt a vast swath of pos owners, especially those who operate multiple large towers, basically i would dare say 2/3 of all pos owners would not be able to own them any more. I think i can speak for most of those and say we dont have multiple technetium moons overflowing out of our back pockets to pay for the cost of such a thing, I think even those tech moon guys if they bother to read Dev posts are having some second thoughts about this. This would negatively impact the ice market in the long run as well, less people can afford to buy the fuel so prices may stay high but the stock of ice products on the market would stagnate, less and less motivation for people to mine it.
This fuel change is far from ready to be released and you need to seriously rethink it a lot more. I'll give you a contrast by providing you with the non sov fuel per a month of one of my towers right now.
324000 Nitrogen Isotopes 5760 Coolant 3750 Mechanical Parts 18000 Oxygen 720 Robotics 28800 Liquid Ozone 10300 Heavy Water 2880 Enriched Uranium
I appreciate you guys going back and making some changes to the actual functions of the pos's, its past the point of being overdue, there are many other areas of POS functions that deserve looking into futher that I hope the devs will actually spend time on. I would be happy to elaborate on those but thats a different topic for a different time. CCP needs to seriously re-think the # of blocks per hour used and dial back the amount of fuel each "Pellet" uses because this is ludicrous and unsustainable for anyone that doesn't own a bot net of 0.0 ratting accounts. Most eve players that lived in null know who I refer to. |

Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
331
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 03:36:00 -
[973] - Quote
Dwarfageddon wrote:Has anyone even noticed the initial numbers per a block and the fact that it uses 4 of those an HOUR!!? The following is use-age numbers for large towers based on the original posted figures per a block.
(followed by lots of stuff)
I suggest, politely but firmly, that you go back and read the devblog again. Overall, small towers will see 10-25% fuel savings per month, medium towers in the 5-10% range and large towers about 4-8% (assuming that fuel prices stay roughly level).
In addition, the new blocks are about 9% smaller then the source materials.
|

sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 03:48:00 -
[974] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Dwarfageddon wrote:Has anyone even noticed the initial numbers per a block and the fact that it uses 4 of those an HOUR!!? The following is use-age numbers for large towers based on the original posted figures per a block.
(followed by lots of stuff) I suggest, politely but firmly, that you go back and read the devblog again. Overall, small towers will see 10-25% fuel savings per month, medium towers in the 5-10% range and large towers about 4-8% (assuming that fuel prices stay roughly level). In addition, the new blocks are about 9% smaller then the source materials.
Hence the reason new players and small corps who base their living out of PI are getting nerfed. Thanks for the numbers. |

Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 03:53:00 -
[975] - Quote
Dwarfageddon wrote:Lots of numbers, making basically no sense
Have to agree with Scrapyard Bob. Just re-read the blog. Whatever you think is happening isn't happening. Most likely you can't read like all the other people who thought that towers would be about 4x as expensive to fuel as they are now. If that's what you're saying. Is it? If not, what are you saying?
What ever you are trying to say, you seem to think it's gonna be more expensive for some reason. It isn't. It will be mostly unchanged, slightly cheaper even. Please try the reading thing again  |

Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
331
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 04:06:00 -
[976] - Quote
sukee tsayah wrote:[quote=Scrapyard Bob] Hence the reason new players and small corps who base their living out of PI are getting nerfed. Thanks for the numbers.
This is not the POCO whine thread.
And this change will help small corps, because now small towers suddenly got a lot cheaper to operate. Which means you can put more of your PI materials on the market rather then spending it on your own POS fuels.
(Complaining about the rise & fall of commodities in EVE is rather pointless. Look at ice prices, or mineral prices, or any other building component which tends to rise and fall based on demand or speculation. If it becomes less profitable to harvest a particular PI good, switch to a different market segment.) |

sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 05:40:00 -
[977] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:sukee tsayah wrote:[quote=Scrapyard Bob] Hence the reason new players and small corps who base their living out of PI are getting nerfed. Thanks for the numbers. This is not the POCO whine thread. And this change will help small corps, because now small towers suddenly got a lot cheaper to operate. Which means you can put more of your PI materials on the market rather then spending it on your own POS fuels. (Complaining about the rise & fall of commodities in EVE is rather pointless. Look at ice prices, or mineral prices, or any other building component which tends to rise and fall based on demand or speculation. If it becomes less profitable to harvest a particular PI good, switch to a different market segment.)
Since you're not in a small corp I would suggest you refrain from assuming what will or will not help us.
Natural fluctuation in demand and speculation is fine. Artificially decreasing demand of one material to the benefit of big corps at the detriment of small corps is not fine. Since you're in a large corp, I'm sure you're fine with the change. Want me to go away? Tough.
|

Lord Timelord
GETCO Black Thorne Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 06:06:00 -
[978] - Quote
True Sight wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:Could the Rorqual's compression system be allowed to manufacture fuel cubes? That, is an awesome request.
Agreed! Either the above idea and/or the possibilty to also Compress Fuel Cubes themselves for some good Blockade Running Re-Supply Runs!  |

Usurpine
Galactic Defence Consortium United Pod Service
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 06:22:00 -
[979] - Quote
I havent read all thread here, just looking into it.
I have spent billions in faction towers to reduce the fuel consumption. WtF i dont understand why people are exciting about the news here, i can only see you nerfed faction towers badly.
As an industrialist i need my slots for building, so now i have to build fuel blocks ? How is that helping me ? I had no problems at all with fueling towers and i have a lot of towers.
I need to dig into numbers more but i have a bad feeling that this patch will cost me a lot of isk per month more.
I am quite disappointed. There is so much said how to improve towers, so why you dont stick on that ? |

Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
88
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 06:42:00 -
[980] - Quote
Usurpine wrote:I havent read all thread here, just looking into it.
Change that. it will change your point of view.
EDIT: Pro Tip: there is a button called Dev Posts, press it and serach for this thread...
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
Tas Nok wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
quoting Greyscale for the Nth time cause of all the trolls too lazy to read... 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 |

Imoshen Solomani
InNova Tech Inc Detrimental Imperative
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 07:50:00 -
[981] - Quote
If you want an idea for lowering faction tower fuel consumption how about this.
Time is out changing the time the fuel cycles would be a super *****, pos's cycle every hour lets not complicate it further.
But how about this.
2 sets of fuel blocks normal ones and faction ones. the faction fuel blocks require less materials to build. but the faction blocks can only be used in a faction tower not a normal tower.
Also a faction tower can also run on normal blocks.
How you get the blue prints for the faction fuel blocks is up in the air.
But i think this would be a workable solution to reduce faction tower fuel without over complicating things. 8 different fuel blocks instead of 4. I wouldnt bother with 2 separate sets of faction blocks for each level id just do one set to not over complicate it.
It would also help if you can reprocess the fuel blocks to allow you to convert them might be a nice idea. |

Usurpine
Galactic Defence Consortium United Pod Service
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 10:17:00 -
[982] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:Usurpine wrote:I havent read all thread here, just looking into it.
Change that. it will change your point of view. EDIT: Pro Tip: there is a button called Dev Posts, press it and serach for this thread... quoting Greyscale for the Nth time cause of all the trolls too lazy to read...
It did. Thanks, my bad. Sorry, its a lot of spam to read, might be a good idea to start a new thread after lots of changes. |

Shivaja
CHON THE R0NIN
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 10:48:00 -
[983] - Quote
You can't be serious guys this should be improvement How by adding more time and more expenses to pos fuel production chain plus removing bonuses from fraction tower is that improvement ? Not by my book . If you do implement this am gonna indict you for war crimes against POS managers  |

Jenn Makanen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 10:52:00 -
[984] - Quote
Shivaja wrote:You can't be serious guys this should be improvement  How by adding more time and more expenses to pos fuel production chain plus removing bonuses from fraction tower is that improvement ? Not by my book . If you do implement this am gonna indict you for war crimes against POS managers 
How about you read more than just the blog? Like the other dev posts in this thread.
You're coming to this late, and appear to think so much of yourself that you can't be bothered reading anything. |

Ned Black
Driders
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 13:49:00 -
[985] - Quote
Have you thought about the ramifications this will have on Liquid Ozone? It will affect heavy water as well, but not to the same extent.
Currently people try to conserve fuel by offlining mods. But with these changes every tower will be LO and HW hogs.
A large tower right now require approx 107k of liquid ozone/heavy water with at 100%
Each block of highsec ice currently yield 25 units of LO and 50 units of HW (not counting taxes). That means that in order for someone to mine enough ice to keep the tower fueled they will have to get approximatly 4300 blocks of ice every month... probably more like 4500 blocks with taxes and skills.
Suddenly EVERY tower in the game schlurps LO and HW like there is no tomorrow... my worry is that production simply cannot keep up with the demand of all those towers... The isotopes wont be a problem however since the blocks required for the LO gives about 4 months worth of isotopes.
I don't even dare to think what will happen if you follow through and remove highsec ice as you were planning some time ago... |

eideen
Resilience. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:05:00 -
[986] - Quote
why not make it so a small tower use 4 block/hour and 8 for a medium and 16 for a large normal towers? that why you can still scall the amount that is need per faction tower.
so you get for a small tower:
tier 0: 4blocks/hour tier 1: 3blocks/hour tier 2: 2blocks/hour
medium
tier 0: 8blocks/hour tier 1: 6blocks/hour tier 2: 4blocks/hour
large
tier 0: 16blocks/hour tier 1: 12blocks/hour tier 2: 8blocks/hour
or more blocks per hours to make it easy to scal. instead of increasing cargo bay. |

Echo Mande
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:05:00 -
[987] - Quote
Ned Black wrote:Have you thought about the ramifications this will have on Liquid Ozone? It will affect heavy water as well, but not to the same extent.
Currently people try to conserve fuel by offlining mods. But with these changes every tower will be LO and HW hogs.
A large tower right now require approx 107k of liquid ozone/heavy water with at 100%
Each block of highsec ice currently yield 25 units of LO and 50 units of HW (not counting taxes). That means that in order for someone to mine enough ice to keep the tower fueled they will have to get approximatly 4300 blocks of ice every month... probably more like 4500 blocks with taxes and skills.
Suddenly EVERY tower in the game schlurps LO and HW like there is no tomorrow... my worry is that production simply cannot keep up with the demand of all those towers... The isotopes wont be a problem however since the blocks required for the LO gives about 4 months worth of isotopes.
I don't even dare to think what will happen if you follow through and remove highsec ice as you were planning some time ago... well, I guess lowsec and nullsec icemining will get a lot more popular then. Glare Crust and Dark Glitter have a lot of LO and HW content (you'll only need a hundred or so blocks each per tower-month) and are available if you know where to look. I'm sure the locals will welcome you with open arms (and maybe gunports) or you can try to strike a deal with them about security and mutual POS fueling interest. Who knows, they may even keep their side of the bargain. |

Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain
Remanaquie Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:06:00 -
[988] - Quote
This may be a great resource saver for heavy industrialists but the small corps such as mine, which would play with the POS power and cpu needs to save up on their ice requirements will see their ice needs rise. And for these small corps having to suddenly start harvesting twice as much ice it will be a royal pain between the buttocks. |

Jenn Makanen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:09:00 -
[989] - Quote
eideen wrote:why not make it so a small tower use 4 block/hour and 8 for a medium and 16 for a large normal towers? that why you can still scall the amount that is need per faction tower.
so you get for a small tower:
tier 0: 4blocks/hour tier 1: 3blocks/hour tier 2: 2blocks/hour
medium
tier 0: 8blocks/hour tier 1: 6blocks/hour tier 2: 4blocks/hour
large
tier 0: 16blocks/hour tier 1: 12blocks/hour tier 2: 8blocks/hour
or more blocks per hours to make it easy to scal. instead of increasing cargo bay.
Yet another person coming in, without reading what's been said since the blog. Now go back and take a look at the dev postings. go to the begining and click the blue dev bar
|

Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:04:00 -
[990] - Quote
sukee tsayah wrote:Scrapyard Bob wrote:sukee tsayah wrote:[quote=Scrapyard Bob] Hence the reason new players and small corps who base their living out of PI are getting nerfed. Thanks for the numbers. This is not the POCO whine thread. And this change will help small corps, because now small towers suddenly got a lot cheaper to operate. Which means you can put more of your PI materials on the market rather then spending it on your own POS fuels. (Complaining about the rise & fall of commodities in EVE is rather pointless. Look at ice prices, or mineral prices, or any other building component which tends to rise and fall based on demand or speculation. If it becomes less profitable to harvest a particular PI good, switch to a different market segment.) Since you're not in a small corp I would suggest you refrain from assuming what will or will not help us. Natural fluctuation in demand and speculation is fine. Artificially decreasing demand of one material to the benefit of big corps at the detriment of small corps is not fine. Since you're in a large corp, I'm sure you're fine with the change. Want me to go away? Tough. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that, and I'm in a small corp (seems to be a prerequisite for you to care for someones opinion). Yes, the demand on Robotics will decrease a bit, but the price has also been rising steadily to close to twice the price it was 2 months ago. It won't bottom out or anything because of this, or even just fall significantly. Also there are other "little guys" besides very new player (who are very new only for a short time). For example those running research and/or manufacturing and/or invention POS for themselves or small corps (which I occasionally do). Those are generally NOT large towers. They will be thankful for the 0.8 to 1.2 mil saved on fuel per day. On the other hand the towers of alliances are more often then not large and don't profit nearly as much from this change.
Don't forget either that producing and selling something like fuel blocks is something a few day old char can do. What they can make with this is unlikely to be epic, but certainly enough to make up for losses that might result from the expected fall of robotics prices. It's also not much work at all. Just a couple of clicks here and there for getting the ingredients and to initiate production.
The POCO change is a different story, but from the last dev post it seems like significant changes are being made before launch. So let's not go into full panic mode just yet, before we even know what changes are actually coming. It would also be the wrong thread for that :) |
| |
|
| 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 |