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) |
SloMoJoe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:13:00 -
[91] - Quote
CCP I'm down on my knees, begging you please, for an automated in situ system of fuel conversion for handover!
Players have already invested a good amount of time buying / hauling fuel out to towers and your proposed 1/2 & 1/2 fuel config during handover really kicks them in the stront bays.
A simple one time script would mean the world to us all. |
Sort Dragon
Resilience. Northern Coalition.
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:14:00 -
[92] - Quote
Not sure if this has been asked but will ME/PE be researchable on these bpos and will they have an effect as to build time and manufacturing needs?
Also will our skill sets effect the building of these fuel blocks?
Have you considered the possibility to allow people to build the fuel blocks in the rorqual also? |
Silk Vixen
Kitsune Industries
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:14:00 -
[93] - Quote
Thanks for breaking what wasn't broken, CCP! Seriously, "bigger bays" on faction towers? The whole reason A LOT used them was...LESS CONSUMPTION! Just when you STARTED to get things right you go and do this. |
Ore Grinder
Star-Gate Command
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:16:00 -
[94] - Quote
I would accept a CPU and PG boost for faction towers in lue of cheaper operation. Not that I need it for a high sec research POS, but it could come in handy for a war dec defense. |
Atacdad
Darknet Builders Inc
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:16:00 -
[95] - Quote
I disagree that the faction towers are used mainly for longer run times. We used them because the fuel requirements were less. yes, that means that the fixed size fuel bay lasted longer...but it directly translated t a lower ISK/hr cost to run them. It seems that CCP's "solution" only addresses half of the issue.
Suggestion: make the faction towers "cycle" longer...say 1.5 hour long cycles. Don't get fixated on 1.5 hours, do the math to figure out what makes sense in parity with current faction tower costs of operation.
(up the stront consumption accordingly too). |
Nomad I
University of Caille Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:18:00 -
[96] - Quote
The production time for those blocks for a single large POS is 5 days (29days fuel) The 10min for a batch a far to high. In 0.0 this is a catastrophy and in empire halv of the production slots producing only those blocks.
Each high sec system with a large amount of moons needs at least fuel for 10-20 POS. In 0.0 there aren't the amount of production slots in the outposts. |
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:19:00 -
[97] - Quote
OMG why havnt you guys done this and the other stuff you posted in the last couple of dev blogs not years ago.
You are not going to make this game even better, are you? : )
Cheers Gal |
mkint
287
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:20:00 -
[98] - Quote
Old system: Do math, haul fuel to POS
New system: do easier math, haul fuel to POS, haul assembly arrays to POS, re-manufacture fuel
This whole things sounds like another nerf to low/null/w-space PI for those who make their own fuel. Of course it'll be good for Greyscale's RMTing friends since they don't actually feed themselves anyway. |
MajorScrewup
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:20:00 -
[99] - Quote
How many manufacturing slots will this take up in empire and also will there be additional manufacturing slots seeded in 0.0 to cope with this extra layer ccp are adding to what was any already easy process? |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:21:00 -
[100] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote: 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.
Costs! (and it would be 3 buy orders...)
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 |
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
292
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:21:00 -
[101] - Quote
Hiram Alexander wrote: I wonder if this change to consumption will make a marked difference to the trading price of Robotics...? I'm a touch unsure whether the drop in 'demand' will be significant enough, but if it is... well now, even more interesting... :)
Depends on the ratio of S/M/L POS towers out there... maybe a 25% reduction in demand for Robotics used as POS fuels. But Robotics are also used in a few other recipes / T2 manufacturing (but POS fuel is probably the primary usage).
Basically, the price of Robotics will always be 10-20% above the component costs, so unless Mech Parts & Consumer Electronics prices also dive, the price won't change. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
140
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:21:00 -
[102] - Quote
I am actually somewhat unhappy with these changes.
1) Having virtually EVERYTHING anchor and online in seconds is WAY too fast. It would be better, IMO, to allow multiple items to anchor/online at once, or to be able to queue up anchoring/onlining actions around a tower so that you can simply tell the tower where you want everything to be, and it will anchor it for you - freeing you up to go do some other activity instead of having to sit there and baby-sit the thing.
2) How long does it take to anchor/online the control tower itself? I fear that if control towers have the same philosophy of anchoring/onlining in seconds, that POSes will be abused in PvP situations. You just spent billions of ISK in lost ships trying to take down a tech moon POS? Guess what, the enemy was able to anchor and online a new tower - IN THE MIDDLE OF COMBAT.
On the other hand, allowing towers to be erected quickly might allow POSes to be used tactically in PvP - bring a couple of haulers full of POS mods/fuel/towers and erect a couple of safe havens with which to terrorize your enemy in his home system. This could make for some interesting dynamics in 0.0.
3) Someone correct me if I am wrong, but don't these changes mean that large towers will consume 11% less isotopes (400 instead of 450), 20% less mechanical parts (4 instead of 5), 20% less oxygen (20 instead of 25)? I hope that this reduction in demand will be paired with the bannings of many, many bots. |
Elaine Everspark
Imperium Technologies F0RCEFUL ENTRY
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:22:00 -
[103] - Quote
How about making one fuel cycle longer on a faction tower ?
So a small tower does 1 block per hour whereas a small tier 1 faction is 1 block per one hour and x minutes? That way faction towers will keep their value... ? |
Largo Coronet
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:22:00 -
[104] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Approximate POS fuel costs per 30 days right now:
Amarr: 136 / 213 / 366 Caldari: 140 / 220 / 381 Gallente: 176 / 291 / 523 Minmatar: 139 / 217 / 375
Estimated costs after the fuel pellets get introduced:
Amarr: 87 / 171 / 341 Caldari: 90 / 178 / 354 Gallente: 122 / 241 / 480 Minmatar: 89 / 175 / 348 Question: Do these estimates factor in sov costs?
And one more thing: Instead of the "half-and-half" baloney, why not just give all existing POS a month's free fuel and have done with it? None of this "HAY! LET'S INCLUDE A NEEDLESSLY STUPID TRANSITIONAL PERIOD THAT MAKES EVERY CORPS LOGISTICS TEAM RUN AROUND LIKE HAMSTERS ON SPEED FOR A WEEK!"
For ONCE, can you stop trying fancy crap and just swap over with a pile of free stuff to make the change easy?
|
Daedalus II
The Older Gamers
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:22:00 -
[105] - Quote
A suggestion to make it possible to have some towers use less fuel:
While it's hard to change the cycle time of the towers, would it be that hard to introduce 4 new fuel types; "Light fuel block"?
Let these blocks contain 75% of the resources of normal fuel blocks (keep the 1 robotics) and let only faction towers and towers in sov space use it. Wouldn't that solve the issue? |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:22:00 -
[106] - Quote
Pavee Lackeen wrote:So basically you are just adding another step in the fueling process while removing some bonuses?
Doesn't seem like anything was gaining and the drudgery increases.
Seriously, nothing was gained? wtf? It's a HUGE advantage to be able to just buy a couple of blocks and be done with it... No fiddling with numbers, how many of this, how many of that to fill the fuel bay... just get X blocks. MUCH better! |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
233
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:22:00 -
[107] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: 3) is technically feasible but raises the technical risk sufficiently that it'd have pushed the whole thing back to a nebulous "later release" (again), so we skipped it..
foreach (Tower as T) {
X = get lowest fuel qty remove fuel type * QtyPerBlock * X insert X fuel blocks move excess fuel to corporation HQ hangar
}
That is so much simpler than making everyone rush around fueling thousands of towers 2-3 times in a month. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:25:00 -
[108] - Quote
mkint wrote:Old system: Do math, haul fuel to POS
New system: do easier math, haul fuel to POS, haul assembly arrays to POS, re-manufacture fuel
This whole things sounds like another nerf to low/null/w-space PI for those who make their own fuel. Of course it'll be good for Greyscale's RMTing friends since they don't actually feed themselves anyway.
oh snap! |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
85
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:25:00 -
[109] - Quote
Devblog wrote:Turrets, launchers, EW batteries and hardeners now take 5 seconds to anchor/unanchor and 120 seconds to online/offline As things stand now on TQ, offlining a POS mod is instantaneous. Is the 120 second offline timer in the blog a typo, or an actual change? |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
292
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:25:00 -
[110] - Quote
Largo Coronet wrote:Scrapyard Bob wrote:Approximate POS fuel costs per 30 days right now:
Amarr: 136 / 213 / 366 Caldari: 140 / 220 / 381 Gallente: 176 / 291 / 523 Minmatar: 139 / 217 / 375
Estimated costs after the fuel pellets get introduced:
Amarr: 87 / 171 / 341 Caldari: 90 / 178 / 354 Gallente: 122 / 241 / 480 Minmatar: 89 / 175 / 348 Question: Do these estimates factor in sov costs?
No, it assumes a max-CPU, max-PG, non-faction tower in hi-sec. Small towers gain the most from this change, medium towers gain some, and large towers get about 8% cheaper. |
|
Arth Lawing
Penumbra Institute Inver Brass
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:27:00 -
[111] - Quote
Give me back my frugal HW/LO use. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
108
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:28:00 -
[112] - Quote
Just to throw my support behind the ideas, as I had them too (they're that obvious):
Large = 400 blocks / hour Medium = 200 blocks / hour Small = 100 blocks / hour
Faction towers get a larger fuel bay AND a consumption reduction. SOV holders also get a consumption reduction.
BPO produces 400 blocks per run, and takes 5 minutes per run like all ammo BPO.
Click-drag-drop. Done. Woo cares about small block numbers!
It isn't rocket surgery! |
Nomad I
University of Caille Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:29:00 -
[113] - Quote
To me this system makes pos fueling much more expensive. I have either to anchor an extra POS to produce blocks, because the production slots are so limited or I have them to buy on market. This system is becomming more annoying. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:29:00 -
[114] - Quote
Arth Lawing wrote:Give me back my frugal HW/LO use. amen |
George K'ntara
We Build Stuff Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:31:00 -
[115] - Quote
Dear CCP Greyscale,
So you can't make a faction POS use only 75% of a fuel block.
How about having the faction towers use the block for 133% longer instead.
For example a normal tower consumes one block every hour. A low grade faction tower consumes one block every 80 minutes. A high grade faction tower consumes one block every 100 minutes.
Is there a reason that wouldn't work?
As a former Highsec Research POS owner, unlike the mighty alliances I was very concerned about my bottom line and used a faction POS for the reduction if fuel costs it gave me. |
Ariane VoxDei
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:32:00 -
[116] - Quote
About factions towers, why are you not just doing what seems to be the obvious thing, to retain their fuel efficiency edge: increasing the time between block consumption.
So regular towers would then cycle every 60m as usual Faction towers would cycle every 63m or 66m, essentially running 5% or 10% longer on each block.
On the manufacture/market side of things, what were your arguments for making 4 racial blocks instead of say 1 common block and keep the (racial) isotopes a separate thing. It would still leave us with a considerable fuelcompression (unless my spreadsheet is horribly out of date) and great simplification (get 2 types in the right ratios instead of 8), but without tying producers to make a racedependent block. It seems to me that this would make a much more efficient fuel/blockmarket (efficient competition) and not tie up isotopes in posfuel-blocks.
Trading aside, I am in particularly worried about getting production of said blocks distributed sufficiently to meet demand. The resulting rampup in fuel costs is soso, things will adjust as people rethink what productionhour is worth to them and eventually let the "time and mined minerals are free" dweebs churn them out for them.
(fakeedit, George K'ntara beat me to the postbutton be about a minute)
|
Ren Adal
Adal Engineering
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:32:00 -
[117] - Quote
Generally speaking I'm very happy with the coming of these fuel blocks. Removing the Faction tower fuel bonus: no so much... |
Dierdra Vaal
Veto. Veto Corp
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:33:00 -
[118] - Quote
if this picture has the 4 icons for the fuel blocks, may I suggest changing the colour of the blocks themselves to hues of the racial colours?
The blocks having a different colour will be much more recognisable than their little frames. It's a small thing, but you may as well get the icons right the first time. Usability goes a long way to getting happy customers :)
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
August Guns
Generic Technologies and Futures Organization
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:34:00 -
[119] - Quote
You can keep faction towers buffed by not only increasing their fuel bays but by also increasing their CPU and PG. Not by a crazy amount, but being able to fit 1/2/4 extra labs on towers or some extra guns would quell most dissent.
Besides faction towers, I like. Creates more industry, lowers costs, less headaches for the end user. This is a good thing. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1430
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:35:00 -
[120] - Quote
Dierdra Vaal wrote:if this picture has the 4 icons for the fuel blocks, may I suggest changing the colour of the blocks themselves to hues of the racial colours? The blocks having a different colour will be much more recognisable than their little frames. It's a small thing, but you may as well get the icons right the first time. Usability goes a long way to getting happy customers :) This is precisely right, this absolutely should get done. Its one of those UI things that's easy to get wrong and EVE has tended to get wrong. Please do this. |
|
|
|
|
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 |