|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Northern Associates.
295
   |
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
First up I have only read the Blue Responses in this thread, and not all 31 pages of comments, so sorry if this has been mentioned.
Given that there are 3 more Blogs to come there is allot of speculation.
Based off the first one I Thought that they were mostly good changes, to my knowledge there is still a query over the retention of BPO for Compression and the new(converted) Compression array, I hope that the BPOs are retained and are required in the new arrays.
Now for comments on the Second one:
Cleaning of the market groups = Good Change
- Never really noticed it before but the icon for the Outpost components/improvement platforms looks a little out of place, as it has a background on the icons, most other icons have transparent backgrounds.
Stopping the Damage = Good Change
- other the chance that this could overload arrays with the sudden 100 times volume increase, no real issues in this one.
- Also just confirming that the existing R.A.M. BPOs output is also increasing by a factor of 100
Extra Materials = Good Change
- just need to confirm that the various Cargo Container BPOs will now actually take ME into account? as currently they are 100% Extra materials.
- Noticed that in the Screenshots that
-- the name of the Bill of materials is changing to Industry? this is weird change.
-- There are some weird arse icons instead of nice easy to read tabs? I think this is backwards step, the icons also take up more room than the previous tabs did
Ok the Slots change = Holding judgement based on future devblogs
But off what is already there hears some speculation
Concept is probably fine for replacing slots with increasing costs, but as to how quickly that scales will be interesting.
Costs being based off the item being produced, does this mean that the time for production is no longer a factor? or that the new cost is the new base install cost?
Structure changes/Supply chain management/Scientific Networking
- I can see that BPOs owned by corporations are now going to be stored in the cheapest location for copying most likely.
I've been in a few corps that have run the following setup, Corp BPO Library in a Station, with members having query access and only the Directors/CEO having Take access to that Hangar. members are then able to research/manufacture from those corp owned BPOs to either that station or to the corp POS/s in system. However with this station, I can't see Directors/CEO moving BPOs for every member that wants to use the BPO in the POS. So members instead of just straight using the BPOs will now have to Copy the BPO and then take the output BPC to the POS to be able to manufacture from it.
Quote:Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements
I'm sorry but this is just a plain step backwards, and frankly makes NO sense. It was bad enough when you didn't have standings requirements when you introduced POCO control to HS
Industry UI change.... Looks allot more graphical and Larger, hopefully none of the information is lost.
I can see that there is a manufacturing job on screen, but I can't tell if there are any missing minerals or what minerals are in use.
Please remember for future changes that increasing the number of icons in place of easily readable text is not always a good thing.
|
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:Utremi Fasolasi wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense. Nanites. Where does the nanite paste come from? That stuff isn't cheap you know.
Considering that there are Remote Armor and Remote Hull Repair modules that run on Capacitor only, I don't think that it is a stretch to assume that free Repair in distant areas of space are based on the same mechanic :) |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:CCP please surprise me and respond to this post.
I really like almost all of this blog.
However.
STANDINGS.
this will be the second or 3rd change to standings that is removing an element from the sandbox.
I would like to see you give standings more meaning and importance. Especially in Highsec. I think it is an interesting mechanic that adds depth to the game-play and creates variety in identity and groups in the game.
It adds a value to the player or corp that has worked to gain standings to anchor a POS in highsec. It used to mean something in FW, and it used to be able to give RP players another layer to judge other players in game.
It seems in regards to standings you keep making the game easier (and I hate to say it but it certainly appears with the direct benefit of assisting the nullsec alliance players.) One of the good balance points was most Nullsec entities were limited in high sec or forced to use smaller alt corps or higher mercs to have a safe highsec POS or industry wing.
I absolutely think that there should be more risk and reward for all activities that occur in Nullsec, but they don't need easier access to run rough shod over highsec. Standings is a good mechanic to help vary the power bases into different areas of the game and I think you should reconsider this change.
Also I did not see you give any good reason for removing it and I think I have presented some good reasons for keeping it.
One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space. You are aware that a nullsec alliance can simply pay a standings service a few ISK (200m is the going price IIRC) to get them to create a new corp with 7.0 faction standings, have a member that's trusted with 5b take complete control of that corp, set up the 20 or whatever number HS POSes the alliance wants, and then admit the corp to join the alliance? That is - exactly the same process that most (in the know) highsec research POSes are established with too, minus the part about joining the alliance. Only difference is, a tower bearing the alliance ticker "Goonswarm Federation" is more likely to be subject to wardecs and attacks than one bearing the ticker "Mission BLITZ". Which is fine, because Goons can (if they care enough to bother) mount a fairly serious POS defense in highsec.
Personally I'd like to see that loophole closed, so that if a Corps Standings dropped below the required amount for more than 7 days then the Faction navy Turns up and starts shooting the POS(or other similar effect) |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Northern Associates.
296
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array? Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.
Hrmmm Time for a new Speculation Small POS with one of each Lab type on it, overloaded, for a small corp might be more cost effective due to fuel costs than a Large POS with lots of Labs on it with the same number of Jobs being pumped through it? |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Northern Associates.
296
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:you're all idiots if you think that the pos congestion fees are going to be anything but zero until you do something like try to stuff an alliance's worth of battleship production into a small pos with a single assembly array
wait to start wigging the **** out until you see the cost devblog
I just think that the sliding scale of number of jobs trying to be Put through vs the number of labs/arrays on the tower vs the Fuel Cost will be an interesting equation once we have the Figures Devblog so that we can start Crunching actual numbers.
Small POS -> Medium POS -> Large POS
2 Arrays -> 6 Arrays -> 12 Arrays(or what ever is currently normal for a POS)
With a constant of 40 Jobs per Week? = what is the Congestion %?
80 Jobs per Week? Congestion %?
160 Jobs per Week? Congestion %?
320 Jobs per Week? Congestion %?
640 Jobs per Week? Congestion %?
(Fuel Cost based on the POS size divided by the number of jobs) + the Congestion Fees
Like I said for a small or one man Corp and his alts, perhaps a small POS with only a couple of Labs/arrays overloaded to 60 Jobs per week is only 1% and is cheaper than running the Larger Tower/s at 0%
Again all speculation until we see the figures blog
|
|
|
| |
|