|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 01:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
My view on this is generally positive. The industrial setup has needed an overhaul for quite some time, however I do feel that forcing placement of BPs in POS arrays or POS corporate hangars will add even more difficulty with asset management. Additionally one key aspect of the whole POS research/manufacturing that has always been a real annoyance doesn't seem to even be addressed, allowing corporation or even alliance member the use of arrays with their personal BPs
Another thing in the upcoming changes is the removal of standings in anchoring, granted this change will allow many POS sets by corporations otherwise excluded from high-sec deployment because of have a diverse composition of members. The side effect is that corps who vested massive amounts of time in running missions for the Empires to get the standings to set their own towers will lack such motivation keep it in addition to agents hostile to an empire to set in systems (which irronicly no established power would tolerate). I suppose it would be a boon for pirate/ganker PvP groups...
And as a side note; It seems to me (apparently others as well) the all improvements or changes to Eve comes with some social engineering tacked on it to give players a "push" to move high-sec to low-sec styles whether that is their choice or not. I fail to see any balance, low and null should be more profitable for those that embrace the risk, high-sec should be less profitable but with the security that more casual players enjoy. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 06:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
As an addition to my previous post on concerns involving the proposed changes it became apparent that some argue with the specific change off removing empire restriction as beneficial and good for the bottom line.
There are some misconceptions with current system.
a. In it's current form it actually favors those smaller corps who through various strategies can easily get the standing to set a tower.
Example: 1. A group of young industrialist with similar faction preference form a new corp and earn a slightly protected niche through service to their particular faction.
2. An established corporation decides to operate a POS in high-sec, members with poor standing drop for little over a week while those with good standing further increase it and possibly take advantage of one of the several faction building services(optional)
There are other ways but those are the two most likely, and in both instances it would be in their interest to defend the existing High-sec POS than pull up stakes every time the wind blow foul.
b. Removing the standing restriction will allow very large firmly established corporations to drop POS's everywhere, ironicly allowing them to move certain assets out of true harms way,
To be perfectly candid every lost POS I've seen in High-sec was solely due either inadequate/zero defenses and operator inexperience. As a counter point to that in low there are these really nasty things called capital ships that are able to tank even decent POS with little support, additionally a low-sec POS can be hit at anytime with or without a war dec
The standing mechanic in high-sec is balanced even if it is annoying as listening to Teletubbies and Barry blaring at full volume with driving in rush hour traffic in an older major city
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
The more I hear of this discussion the more I'm convinced that everyone is getting screwed with expected change.
Infinite slots at stations with sliding cost scale, ok... Only long term shortage of slots I've ever seen is for ME & Coping. Rarely have I seen the actual manufacturing lines completely full for anything longer than a week. With PE and Invention I have NEVER seen all lines at a high-sec station in any system I frequented full, granted I don't set up shop adjacent to major hubs.
WTH should there be taxes levied against operations conducted at a POS anywhere? Ok, my corp (an alt btw) grinds out faction (ie suck up to an empire) set the structures, pay legit dues to anchor in high (charters). Now, if I choose I can have labs, certain manufacturing arrays, maybe the Eve equivalent to a Meth Lab (Drug Lab for boosters, no sure on that one but figure I'd lighten the tone a little).
Here comes summer expansion... Empires suddenly don't mind any ol' Tom, Richard and Scary to plop a POS at a moon it is ok, because we are gonna tax them for whatever they do... Oh pay no mind to it breaking any semblance to rational visage of political paradymns or lore.
Oh, you're in low? Don't worry we got a rusty axle shaft for you too! Concord/Empire doesn't care as much who you are to begin with or generally what you do. Fear not friend or fiend for you shall get taxed too.
(I really wished I had something witty to say about null to follow in the theme but lack experience in that arena, however I don't assume they would get much true benefit realistically)
Let us not belittle the lube for the S&I complex a new interface, mind not the abrasive in said lube in the way of adding more complexity to tracking print real locations or the joy of risking that several billion isk bpo to get it copied to 'safely' produce it *snort...
After 80+ pages I thought a some what satyrical albeit possibly biased (or may not biased) summary was in order. I had a few witty analogies but none where fit for public discourse.
post note: You got to love auto-censor poor Richard So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:
And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is:
EVE: Contraction
Simply brilliant...
hmm, "Building Better Worlds"... did CCP get bought by Wylan-Yutoni? (Alien franchise reference, latter half of thread title is used verbatim in sequel Aliens I'm surprised it took me this long to catch it)
I would suggest to the Devs that this being early in the life cycle of expansion design, now would be a good time to reassess key aspects. It is evident post expansion game play is going to change and most likely not in direction planned.
Just my 2isk
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
Another option the summer foam bat beating removes:
Under current system a corp with a POS in high-sec can make Lab slots available to other corporations in an Alliance either free or with some cost. However it is only remote no material jobs it restricts things to general ME/PE research also the alliance corp has to have a office in the system and BP's in a corp hangar in addition to researchers having access to a wallet division.
The process could be vastly improved, but it does offer alternatives to high-sec (or low) alliances feeling a research slot crunch and forms a definite form of cooperative intergrated groups.
The proposed change of removing the remote job from an office, removing restrictions on anchoring, and taxing work at a POS create nothing but more issues. It will however cripple actual functioning aspect of a flawed system, promote even more solo person micro corps and POS spamming.
Also as stated by dozens of posts already it makes it less likely to defend a POS assets; which not suprisingly improved more defense oriented permanent POS sets as defense measures to protect POCO's particularly in systems with one or no stations.
Many parts of the planned changes as stated produce at best a zero-net gain at worse a negative-net gain for anybody anywhere operating a POS.
All this rot about is Risk vs Reward completely ignores the Commitment : Reward ratio that exists.
Another thing completely overlooked is in starter systems it is nigh impossible to complete the S&I career mission involving manufactering in bonus isk period (or at all) due to bloat of jobs in those systems*, sure it will open slots now but at the density of use in those systems it would break a new player's wallet.
*note: In a previous post I had stated that I had seen rare occasions of manufactoring slot max loads in my travels, I didn't happen to recall this particular scourge until later, it has been quite some time since I actually operated out of a newbie system or done career missions. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
After going back to the EDITED first post an aspect that is proposed is remote running of jobs from containers. To that I say Kudos, brilliant, and about time. However not likely to change BP security issues especially if in a POS anybody who can remove the container in it's entirety can throw it in a personal hangar wait till an audit log reaches the point where you can repackage the container and bang repack it and and have it's contents.
The continued indication to have a tax levied on any POS no matter where is BS there is already associated cost operating a POS as it is, seriously is there gonna be a little customs agent audits maybe Scottie the Docking Clone has a cousin named Richard the Customs Agent Clone?
Removing standing restrictions in high-sec... it makes no sense there is no risk to losing a POS if every war-dec a corp packs up shop without worrying... "wait with those new guys we added we won't be able to reset it..."
Back to the BP must be in POS to use thing, it would stifle everything except POS structure fabrication since those HAVE to be done at a station or outpost. Transport of BP to and from trade hubs is bad enough, more than once I've had a ship ganked on undock at Jita with a several hundred mill un-researched BPO in the hold.
Dev's keep rethinking it, there some Good, a lot of bad, and way to much Ugly at the time of this post
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 08:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
A slightly divergent to topic discussion but related item.
Since changes are going to be made to BP removing extra materials it might be a good idea to address BPOs that have unusually low Max runs.
One example would be the Nanite Repair Paste Blueprint it is classified as a charge however it max run limit is 5 and each run producing 10 units. I'm quite sure there are others, likely not more than 20 at most, but that one just happened to jump out at me.
Back to the main aspects of the discussion. A clarification of the POS "tax" since towers with arrays and outpost stations both fall under the same acronym (Player Owned Structure/Starbase) which technically e POCO is as well, obviously a POCO doesn't have research or manufactering lines so definately not related to question but pointed out the ambaguity of the acronym.
a. If a player owned station where to go into some sort of "overdrive" to handle higher density of jobs an added automatic surcharge makes sense especially since it would put more demands on line (much like overheating modules)
b. In the case of arrays and mobile labs I see no point in making capacity scalable other than using more arrays or labs
In either instance a "TAX" is not appropriate, in the particulars A is in player owned territory and any surcharge for exceeding capacity should be reflected in by the indication anything exceeding capacity would use more resources and require significantly more maintence and preferably an optional feature. In the instance of B capacity shouldn't be dynamic apart from adding more within the limits of what CPU and Powergrid is available to draw from. A tax applied to the production based on the demand density in a system could only be perceived as a subsidy to some 3rd (NPC) party.
Also in a more refined and detailed reiteration of my position of removing standing requirements from high-sec:
Towers and arrays in high-sec with the given productions they can do and the fact that they are only legal targets in the case of war the only time that a large risk of production loss is valid is in the production of batches or individual items taking a long run time and cost expensive resources to be cancelled and unanchored. Cancelling jobs and unanchoring labs is down right trial, especially when operations use a mitigating strategy of doing research a couple levels at a time or whatever can be accomplished in a 3 to 7day window.
Individuals and groups will only defend territory or assets if they have a vested interest to do so, case and point the change to POCO's corporations and alliances will and do defend those since they are static assets, the only other parallels I see are those who can not replace a tower in high-sec via standing or those in low who find a marginally decent moon to mine.
I shall attempt to refine and reiterate these positions until they are understood or are debunked as misconception on my part
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 13:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Update!
- All R.A.M. and R.Db. volume has been reduced from 4m3 to 0.04m3 to accommodate for their new required numbers.
- All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array.
- All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
- Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.
Example:
- BobTheClever installs Megathron Blueprint in Dodixie NPC station and use his corporation Starbase to research ME on it right now. Estimated delivery date is after the summer release. When he delivers the research ME job, the researched Megathorn blueprint will delivered back at the NPC station.
R.A.M & R.Db's point definately makes sense since more will be consumed instead of them 'decaying' Second and 3rd points - boosts to player structures nice, still waiting on the price for it
Final bulleted point and example: Good to know that they know changing remote jobs is gonna screw things... Decentralizing BP location when adding feature to run from containers is akin to look we fixed things but now we are gonna break it in different manner. I have yet to see how forcing BPs into a starbase offers anything genuinely in line with all 3 let alone 2 of the benchmarks stated for this expansion
Quote: We thus needed a strong direction on how to proceed and, as such, we came up with the following set of principles:
Any industry feature must have an actual gameplay attached to it in order to exist Any industry feature must be balanced around our risk versus reward philosophy Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base
(From the announcement, they where numbered 1-3 but didn't translate in copy and paste)
I've already debunked the moving BPs to starbase premise of the #2 principle in at least two of my past posts, myself losing a print due to this change is rather unlikely it is a more of an annoyance issue and fixing something that wasn't really broke.
I'll even throw out my own example: Willie Coyote Corp has 2+ starbases in a system and 1 office. WCC does different things at different starbases say 1 is research the other is production. Under current system there is no issues, the same BPO can transition from research to manufactor instantly assuming of course the array was loaded with mats. Different permissions can be used for the members who run the jobs and those who move the materials ie finished product or BPC's Post expansion as stated. WCC now will either have someone move the BP's for S&I guys or give them the permissions to do so themselves.
I see the risk all too well member theft due to undermining corporate roles and controls, Reward? More corporate drama and theft. Hey guys if that is what you are promoting might as well say so up front.
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 14:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
@LHA Tarawa
It is specifically stated as a taxes
Quote:Station (POS) owners will be charged parts of the running costs (taxes), other parts are outside the owners control. Total costs will never be zero. More information in an upcoming blog. (section of OP)
As it has been pointed out to me every time I've made a real world comparison "Eve is not Real Life" so I have instead adopted a lore/common sense approuch to my arguements.
Lore and common sense wise: NPC stations realistically could scale their S&I with the increased "burden" of course they could charge a premium to offset their "burden" same NPC stations could reasonably be in an agreement on how much the scaling surcharge would be.
Capsuleers however are not, nor should be under an universal mandate of equity or even citizens of any given empire Operating costs in fuel and other resources - supported by Lore Requiring charters for high-sec operation (and having standings) - supported by Lore and logical POCO in high-sec with built in tax then corp assigned tax - supported by Lore in that empire space is controlled so to permit the continued existence of that type of orbital platform they can demand compensation
There are already Lore associated and logical isk sinks in the game every order buy or sell has fees and or taxes, services provided only or in the majority by NPC groups and stations.
And referencing back to quoted line from the original post, cost is never zero to begin with there are always costs and is always under some degree of control even so far as to limit production or suspend/cancel it in entirety. Some of the economic hyperboley posted by various people would have private business owners in coughing fits from laughing so hard. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
I pose the question to those it would affect:
Do player/ organizations feel the need or want scalability in their player owned structure?
The more general question, Unless I'm way out of date office slots are finite in both NPC and Player stations, How could a corporation even use pooled assets without an office?
Seriously current configuration allows a corp to get an office at a station without the research and/or manufacturing slots and do the actual work remotely from at a starbase from the station office So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 18:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:I was thinking of setting up my first POS this weekend. It would be pretty much exclusively for ME/PE research, BPCs and soon some T2 invention, but I'm not sure it will be worth it with these changes.
I farm/make my own charters and fuel, and to me it's worth the 100M or so a month to not wait 30 days for a research slot even in my somewhat remote home system, and my understanding is currently you don't even need to expose your BPOs if your POS is in the same system, or close system with the right science skills. However, with these changes let me get this straight:
1) The time I spent farming faction standing will almost be completely wasted 2) I'll still need to fuel and charter my POS 3) My BPOs will now be vulnerable when transporting, or having my corp war decced and POS attacked if I can't be online for a couple days and can't retrieve my BPOs in time. 4) I'll have to pay the same NPC tax as I would using the soon to be unlimited and completely safe NPC facilities.
Someone please tell me why I should bother having a POS after these changes? Unless we are getting some huge bonus somewhere I haven't seen, it seems to me to be a no brainer to *maybe* pay an up to 14% surcharge to have complete safety and save 100M or so a month on fuel and charters.
If launched as planned you won't have much if any advantage, which sucks, operating a POS can be rewarding experience, my first was in 0.4 low sec till I got the ability to set in high... So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 00:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote: ...
Why not do all the changes but keep in remote operation of labs like it is now but add a cost because we are using a station to do it. And it could scale up based on how much the station is used..but we could still remote research our bpo's and remote copy them. This also helps new peeps because they wont need empire standing to put up a pos.
Aside from the last line in the partial quote where I disagree about standings removal helping new players, I agree and find it actually pragmatic and fits with common sense and lore.
heck it can be rolled into cannon with something like this
"With the increased independence of the capsuleers and proliferation capsuleer corporate owned structures in space, Corporations throughout the various empires have decided that the high bandwith secure channels used in the remote S&I sector are a premium service and not inclusive to office rental fees in the past. The XYZ initiative has introduced the universal HBSC surcharge"
Wow, I just might have meet all 3 principles in the "Big Plan" So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:48:00 -
[13] - Quote
I've been waiting for someone to make the argument on how keeping BP's secure at a POS... I don't see happening soon so I'll just make the Pro BP at POS argument and then promptly squash it.
Blueprints will be secure at a POS because since we will be able to run them from containers and audit contains can lock items so they can be viewed without taken, You only need to be able to see the blueprint to use it much the same as in corporate hangers now. And having them locked in an audit container keeps them in one place too.
Above is about the best argument that could be made...
However
- Corporate roles and permissions regarding container access is not exactly straightforward especially at a POS
- This of course assumes you can run jobs from an anchored corporate hangar at the POS
- Audit containers rely on passwords, that can be requested if a member has a permission or role(s) that allow it, simply unlock the item and take
- The type of audit containers that could be located at a POS are generally small enough to be taken assembled in the typical industrial ship
- Even if the BPs (or other items) are locked it only requires waiting till the activity log has been idle long enough then repackage, result 1 repackaged audit container and everything that was in it right there in a personal hangar
Yup zero net gain still, and just as much of an annoyance, Hey at least a thief can still steal big easier.... So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:05:00 -
[14] - Quote
Barune Darkor wrote:In general, I like the changes. This coming from a high sec industrialist.
But...in regards to a POS
1. I'd like to see some type of anchor-able secure container, maybe a new blueprint container (without the stacking issues), that allows a locked blueprint to be installed to labs/assembly lines and returned to the container in a locked state once the job is delivered. A means of bpo security at the pos.
2. Materials that are consumed by assembly lines should be fed from an anchored corporate hanger. No one likes the click fest of moving materials to all of the different assembly lines.
I always envisioned BP not being physically moved but more akin to DRM (DIgital Rights Mangement) scheme hence the existing status of remote from office, POS work
In regards to your second point, that actually would remove "game play" one of the principles touted in the announcement. Additionally the ease will come at a price, some corporations actually budget materials to each array. So say with your suggestion member A goes a little (probably alot) overboard in producing ammo members B and C can't do their work in drones and small ships (or whatever). The existing method prevents that, requires more management but honestly that is kind of the point in operating a POS. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:35:00 -
[15] - Quote
@Barune Darkor
In the current mechanics no independent structure can be anchored inside a POS, and dealing with high-sec secure and audit containers can only be anchored in space below a certain level. Anyway to be able to access the arrays the BP has to be in something under the corporate access method either in the array itself or corporate hangar division either at the POS or for now an office in system.
Most corps use POS for corp projects, they aren't geared for individual use. However there IS a way, actually it very similar to renting research slots to alliance members. In either case it is not easy in any way shape or form. It took me over a month to finally get it down and explainable. The instructions would require a topic unto itself and probably be at least 3 posts due to character limit.
It would be nice to see if the teams thing that hasn't been disclosed would change that.
The complexity and scope of corporate management of mid and above size groups is sadly too close to diverting way of topic and I rather say your idea is nice in principle but not in line with past developments or exiting management mechanics So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 09:57:00 -
[16] - Quote
I have the feeling even if this thread goes another 90 pages and thousand upon thousand of posts, ending in a fair and realistic consensus of what the changes should be and even supporting them in a logical manner the player community understands and accepts. There will still be a huge amount of pet theories by different design aspect personal or some sort of social-engineering agenda that even an armada of ever titan in the game firing at once concentrating at the same point couldn't punch a pinhole through.
That aside this debate should be educating the less experienced, confusing some while giving clarity to others. This is common ground no matter where you locate you character. Personally, I believe discussions like this with strengthen the Eve community
Summary of my positions:
- Keep remote jobs from station office for POS work
- Keep anchoring restrictions in High-sec
- No forcing taxes, fees, surcharges to Player owned space assets anywhere*
- No social-engineering, maintaining balance in a game is one thing but to change something to specifically manipulate player base is a no-no
- Placeholder for something I've obviously forgot
*Exceptions: Fixed surcharge on "Com Traffic concept or similar" of blueprints being located a station office (prefer not, butt....) Scaling cost of lines in a player owned outposts, but ONLY if line scaling is optional and the cost is somehow reflected by some resource needed, increased draw on an auxillary power source, something like that. Definitely not some isk black hole
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 20:37:00 -
[17] - Quote
Could someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from the mining frigate all ORE ship BPO's originate at ORE stations out in low/null and only available in the high-sec market if someone brings them there.
Also the biggest ship that can be built in High-sec POS I know for sure is the Orca, I suspect you can build Freighters either Jump or standard at the very least in a station. (I'll admit building Freighters is outside my interest so haven't vest much time on possibility of high-sec fabrication) Even if the anchoring restrictions are lifted there won't be any notable increase in there production or research. Especially if the BP has to be at the POS, it takes around 2 months to increase 1 ME or Copy a 1 run BPC, and roughly 7days to build (of course with better skills it would be less... but not much). The cost to do it at a station would be astronomical.
Currently a BPC set for an Orca can run as low as 100mil many smaller indy corps take that route when first starting to scale up or team building project. Or 900mil to 1.7bil isk just for the Orca BPO itself plus about 500mil to 1 bill per subcomponet BPO. I've used the Orca as an example because of interconnection of null to high in its acquisition and production cycle.
Granted I don't see every small or medium size corp even wanting to build Orcas regularly or even at all especially with BPO's it would be too much isk to tie up in a specific single (or grouped) asset. This is one of the common big cases where risk assessment would limit it to significantly large corporations to have a standing defense to provide the BPC market which smaller corps usually are the main consumers before some venture into the investment to produce their own BPC's for sale fueling competition.
I say no to POS taxing/charges, I say no to decentralizing and removal to BP remote from station work, I say no to forcing player station/outposts to behave like NPC equivalents and into thin air isk charges associated.
That last bit sounded like I was running for office So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 03:26:00 -
[18] - Quote
Hmm... Generalizations and assumptions weaken the merit of an argument.
A degree of risk adversion is logical, sane, and prudent. To what degree varies person to person and group to group, but any risk that is without appropriate reward lacks enough merit to justify itself. Much in the same vein locations that are more "free" have lower expectations of security due the associated benefit of that freedom.
I form my arguments in line with neutrality to location not centered on my own play style, particularly in this thread. The argument against removing remote from station POS work stems from how I perceive the mechanics involved. As I've stated before I view blueprints much more akin to DRM items. In that regard an actual interaction with the physical item need be required. The blueprint original or copy is as described a licensed set of instructs and methodologies. Research improves the methodologies hence making the instruction commands more efficient in either time or waste. Manufacturing as well need not directly need the physical interaction with the data set and instructions just a method of getting the constructs to the apparatus implementing them. Even if we go with the supposition that BPC's decay physically due to consumption of a licensed run it still need not physical interaction at the apparatus level.
Arguments I've made against lifting the restriction on anchoring starbases in high-sec is reflection of basic territorial security concerns. Just as sovereign player territories can dictate who and what can be in their systems it is reasonable and balanced to expect NPC space to act in much the same manner. Groups wanting to use the privileged space of null, low or even high must comply with respect with the sovereign of that territory then to the power bloc groups operating inside the sovereigns territory. It is a fair, logical, and universally applicable premise.
Another of my argument has been against taxes, charges or fees on any player owned structure without clearly defined and applicable reason. The ability of of a NPC corp to scale its facilities with subsequent additional costs need not nor should be forced upon starbase facilities. Additionally player outposts should be able to elect to implement that feature or not. If the owner has chosen to use said ability, the reason for the cost and where it goes and how should be defined.
All in all, a well rounded unbiased set of arguments with no hidden agenda.
In postscript I would like to apologize particularly for the very specific and uncommon terms used especially the individual who speak english as a second language. The reason was to reduce ambiguity, I do not feel that I am any better or worse than another nor wish to be seen as an elitist.
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 06:39:00 -
[19] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
Once you start a job, the costs are sunk...i.e. they are unrecoverable.
If you are letting those costs still influence your behavior then you are being irrational. Once costs are sunk they should no longer have any impact on your decisions.
So, forgive, but it seems you don't know anything about sunk costs.
And going forward you don't have to use a POS...for anything. You are assuming that using a station is going to be more expensive than using a POS.
I can't and won't even try to refute economic theory. However only a small percentage of players, likely very small, even care about macro-economics, most are not much more interested in economics other than not taking a loss while being engaged and entertained. At it's foundation Eve is a game, a very diverse, feature rich, quasi simulation of a hypothetical future. The physics engine isn't even remotely close to known laws or theorized possibilities. The simplification is required to make it an enjoyable game. Precision in the simulation of various aspects would make Eve frustrating to the point of death by account attrition. The use of real world parallels only work in aspects to set the game universe in easily understandable framework, otherwise it would be far too alien for the general public. Eve makes you think and diverts a person's attention from issues that daily stress.
The simple fact is player's shouldn't and don't need to micromanage everything, so if a player runs their jobs at a POS, Station, Outpost or by some weird alignment of space time the laundry service of their ship the cost in material and time is already understood and accepted. If a single player corp has the the individual go offline for that annoying experience called the real world, they have their jobs set, POS fueled for a reasonable duration and the corp gets a war-declaration and subsequent burning of the POS to a cinder, the associated loss of structures, product, and materials pale in comparison to the emotional impact of a player who had spent significant time and isk to acquire blueprints especially hard to get originals or faction copies.
Playing Eve is not more important than real life concerns, a job, or relationships. Anyone who would think that really needs to seek some mental health help (I'm not being specific to any one person). Additionally in a game, perception is reality, no matter unfounded it may seem.
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 20:34:00 -
[20] - Quote
The argument that I make against blueprints being force into starbase structures to be used relies more on logistical and unneeded complexity issues with a dash of lore supportable real life parallels to reinforce the concept.
Individuals who contributed other reasons for the same only add to the points why it is undesirable, just as mine reinforces theirs. Blanket statements to refute the arguments combined invalidate themselves.
Other statements about fears and loss avoidance crippling individuals or groups from pursuing opportunities fail to take into account the context of mine and similar arguments. To propose a change to copy production location would be the only valid instance to support such claims in regards to the blueprint location. However in this thread on this specific topic it hasn't been suggested. Space borne assets are at risk irregardless, POCO and starbases are attacked and destroyed even in high-sec on regular basis and their contents are subject to loss. This is a natural and proper process as it serves the true purpose of war especially in regards to attrition, retaliation, and expansion.
Losing materials, structures, and product is a risk that all but the under informed or naive know and accept and would fall under the pretext of if you can't defend it you lose it, the act of deserving something is irrelevant.
Equating freighter ganking in the same context isn't valid, also I would like to point out that the threat could be mitigated with combat escorts and scouts if desired to truly reduce losses from acts of piracy. (note I didn't say end piracy)
Forming your point or counter point in a discussion/debate solely on either an over intellectualized of economic modeling or over simplified "Kill or Die" stance both ignore the fact to be able to play in your particular style or observe and interact with a reactive market model for study and analysis requires all the varied and individual shades and styles between. Doing so makes the model static and moot also predator without prey turn upon themselves ultimately leaving on a few left that in life would starve and in game would so grow bored.
As an after thought, anyone who has ever used the locking mechanics would know using it is not a quick on and off process it requires a vote to lock and unlock. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 06:03:00 -
[21] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Flash Phoenix wrote:
About that play smarter part, sure you can cancel the job and get your bpo back, If its being researched and you get your BPO out you likely loose a lot of research time. Guess than can be a big deal or not. If its a manufacture job then you loose all of your materials and the build times of the components. Now we are talking some serous isk for most any toon in the game, got any idea how many successful sells you need to make to get back the material loss of one orca job ? Not sure who is wearing the "panites" so I will not even get into the "wuss" aspects of high sec so called PvP corps placing a wardec on a bunch of miners or manufactures to pop a POS.
Sure but better than losing the manufacturing materials AND the BPO. Your bigger problem will be if NS alliances decide to dec you/industry guys to make your lives harder and slow you down so that they can capture a larger share of the market. HS war dec corps are mostly...meh...
Quote management needs an overhaul
Thank you Flash for pointing out the existing risk, I glossd over that part and you probably made the point better than I could, definitely in context of my quoted post removed from the quote chain.
In regards to commentary made by Kun'ii
There has been an increase of very capable PvP mercenary High-sec corps since the POCO in high was introduced. Their interest in taking out space based assets would shift from the undefended POCO to more actively engaging an armed POS. The operational premise of such groups is the pursuit of war on a contractual basis to either destroy assets or hamper productivity. That is a much more present, viable, and likely threat. That minority which is growing in numbers is a threat greater than the rest of the majority of high-sec war to be annoying groups combined, and with reasonable risk-assessment more than bulk of null-sec corps and alliances who could only use a subset of their member base and change from accustomed strategies.
The groups that practice the art of war seriously in high-sec have done so in the confines of a restricted system forcing greater proficiency to compensate for less flexibility. Dismissing them lightly is to be either under informed or foolish. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 09:14:00 -
[22] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Taking out a POCO vs. a HS dickstar are two very different things.
Even with a full fleet taking down a dickstar is going to be tedious work. And since hitting a HS research POS will produce a fight with probability 0, I doubt you have much to worry about beyond your hypotheticals.
I've never even considered trying to anchor a male exotic dancer let alone male known for their work in the sex industry in space..
Levity aside for deliberate error in term meant to insult high-sec POS operators. Such comments lend one to believe that arguments previously made whether or not based on valid premises are originated from prejudice, contempt and/or ignorance. Market speculation and threat assessment are both based on hypothetical scenarios and projections.
As much as I enjoy the debate, it is apparent that it will degenerate further serving only to further under cut the validity of your arguments and force me to convey ideas in a public forum to degree of precision that is more suited to a technical paper or legal brief. So I concede to the fact I can no longer offer a debate with you within the limits of what I find tolerable in perception of arrogance, elitism, and pretension, in my posts. Although no one has voiced that opinion yet many may already have it and further posts at this degree verbal complexity would add more and reinforce such misunderstanding.
Anyway hopefully we as community get some feedback from Devs soon, there is very little left to debate constructively. With luck I can go back to more casual toned posts that are easier to understand. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:14:00 -
[23] - Quote
@Dei You mentioned the lore aspect, it was actually handled fairly well in that you are paying virtual NPC workers to run the apparatus (was so much easier to say lines for both labs and arrays )
Other parts well I'm kinda disappointed, the delay and then bam dropping 3 dev-blogs at once. Honestly it gives me the impression that the releases was designed to scatter the point by point arguments because they had vested too much and didn't quite get the fanfare they where expecting. Hehe, maybe it just took time to build some research and supporting materials retroactively...
Dunno, I have a major case of seeing "The tail wagging the dog". So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:02:00 -
[24] - Quote
Upon reflection I think I get the gist of CCP premise...
Someway or another the A.I. in POS structures all got lobotomized at the exact same instant so virtual workers are now required. Then mysteriously developed folding space technology but it only is applicable to manufacturing tooling and laboratories. Meanwhile back at the hall of absurdity.... People discovered you can use blueprints from inside containers but somehow forgot the method of using them remotely.
I suppose the expansion should be called "Paradox" or "Oxymoron"
For all the "supporting" information provided people would think to have some realistic constants. Seriously I put this on par with a caveman not being able to make a campfire building an ion based propulsion system. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:58:00 -
[25] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Flay Nardieu wrote:Upon reflection I think I get the gist of CCP premise...
Someway or another the A.I. in POS structures all got lobotomized at the exact same instant so virtual workers are now required. Then mysteriously developed folding space technology but it only is applicable to manufacturing tooling and laboratories. Meanwhile back at the hall of absurdity.... People discovered you can use blueprints from inside containers but somehow forgot the method of using them remotely.
I suppose the expansion should be called "Paradox" or "Oxymoron"
For all the "supporting" information provided people would think to have some realistic constants. Seriously I put this on par with a caveman not being able to make a campfire building an ion based propulsion system. Our previously infinite supply of minmatar slave workers, lifetime supplies of which were factored into the isk cost of starbase modules when being built, has now dried up. We now have to hire much more expensive paid, educated labor. Basically? **** your lore. Lore should never get in the way of gameplay. The expansions are about improving gameplay - lore revolves around them. Gameplay does not revolve around lore.
Seriously? I was addressing more of the issue of it not being logical than hollering it isn't lore so it is wrong. Anyway playing a game with a overly linear or non-existent storyline no matter the technical expertise involved in game play usually sucks after playing once. Counter point to that, a really good story can engage a player and increase replay value even if the mechanics are awkward. I only use lore in the context of the game making sense not specific operational game play.
Frankly speaking the expansion as proposed has very little in the way of improving game play. it doesn't overly break things and definitely playable. Overall it is not much than a more (subjectively) intuitive interface over a hack job of changing things to justify man-hours.
And wow, I didn't even need to insult or be profane amazing So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 05:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
Aside from making prints more vulnerable to internal theft, removing the remote from office hangar feature except for the overly paranoid the risk can be virtually ignored in high-sec. The area I see it hurting the most is low-sec operations, particularly those who are just starting to venture into that arena. Plus the feature's removal in context doesn't make much sense and reduces options.
Having a pool of NPC workers in a system affecting the costs of jobs actually makes sense and is perfectly reasonable. However removing hard caps on amount of jobs at mobile labs and arrays does not. Someone with a basic understanding of manufacturing knows you have a finite space in a building or location. It is reasonable to believe a station or outpost could reallocate physical space to adjust for more concurrent jobs, in a mobile lab or array it doesn't. It would make more sense to simplify hard caps to jobs and not job types. Doing so shouldn't even need much change to work already done by dev nor affect the UI changes and lab modifiers. Just take the sum of the different job types in a lab and set that as the maximum capacity per that type of lab. Array capacity would just stay the same or tweaked.
Even if the previous paragraph is ignored, I still wonder if there is any advantage of having multiple labs at a POS after the expansion.
I know some may feel the things I am arguing against are trivial, to be honest I'm actually pointing out issues that I would actually benefit from personally if left as proposed. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 12:12:00 -
[27] - Quote
Easier does not equal better, but too easy equals complacency and to most boring.
Reasonable limits and restrictions encourage people to adapt inside those constraints rewarding those who do so giving them an edge in tactics and economic competition.
Removing starbase restrictions in high-sec are counter intuitive, especially in light of changes to NPC stations' manufacturing and research abilities. The removal of restrictions has much less to do with S&I than it does as a balancing element. I'm amazed the low and null groups aren't making the point for me. Every corporation that was using a POS in 0.4 space because the group couldn't get together to maintain a minimal standing with an empire long enough to set one (or at least should considering the risks that they will face related to other points I've made repeatedly in the past)
Just for those who don't know the limits as they are now verse the rewards I will explain
- 0.5 is the lowest security systems in high sec, they have the full protection against capitals and start the most restrictive of structure anchoring
- 0.4 is the highest security you can anchor a POS tower without empire standings it has most of the restrictions of high-sec structure anchoring and the risk of being engaged by capital ships
- 0.3 this is the line where restrictions limiting not only moon mining but the reactions of the moon goo
The first POS I managed was in Hulmate, it is a 0.4 system with 1 NPC station. Simply because the corp I was in at the time could not get the standings required 5.01 with an empire based on the raw standing of the active players. The risk was worth the reward, the limitations forced us to learn how to play smarter. Ultimately when I decided to take it down it had never lost a single defense structure it even got a kill mail, it had ran for months only reason it was unanchored was fuel costs.
The restrictions didn't hinder us (and likely many others) it was a learning experience greatly improving teamwork and tactics.
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 09:18:00 -
[28] - Quote
Apart and somewhat irrelevant to my standing argument about the proposed expansion's flaws. I pose a couple questions to CPP and my fellow players.
- Will there be a practical purpose for the Personal Hangar Array? Will jobs at a POS be able to started from that location using material in the individuals 'hangar' and product placed in the same?
- Would it not make more sense instead of removing the underpinnings (particularly the ones that work) in the POS model to just scrap it and migrate to something similar to what is seen in various NPC missions under the Mobile/Deployable model frame work?
- Exactly how much of this expansion's changes are truly an improvement under intense inspection of the whole and isolated parts?
I am particularly interested in the first and last question.
From the beginning when the Dev-Blogs where released I had already resigned myself to the futile pursuit addressing issues doubting even if I could convince others of the validity of my points, effect something more than a trifling change. So let us see, answers to these questions three. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.02 10:23:00 -
[29] - Quote
Shamus en Divalone wrote:...
I believe they should be looted BPC's or BPC's reverse engineered from a meta 4 loot drop, that would be cool.
Is there going to be some restriction on the amounts of war decs corps can have now seeing as all POS's in high became war dec magnets following this expansion?
I agree they should be drops or reverse engineered, with reverse engineering the preferred method that way people can get a taste of it before venturing into T3 aspect
As for war-dec limits, there have been even stronger arguments for a change in the past. The possibility of them changing it over POS related aggression is probably zero. It could also be argued the increase of war against space assets is the idea, for the removal of anchoring restrictions (which I think due to various reasons is bad)
The risk of blueprint loss due to an attack in high-sec is rather low even with forcing them to be at the POS(another point I've argued against and view as a bad idea) So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:21:00 -
[30] - Quote
I seriously wonder how many of the people posting about removing high-sec restriction on POS anchoring will be a boon to the small corp have even set a POS? Under the indicated direction of the expansion S&I is going to be a vagabond/nomad culture for the smaller groups, chasing the bonuses to improve the margins.
There is a significant amount of time involved not to mention the volume of the tower, lab, arrays, fuel, and stronthium. A setup for a small tower with labs and limited arrays would barely fit in an Orca. Then you need to load materials to do the actual work, which at least matches the volume of the tower and structures. The there is the tear down cycle...
People really need to research the POS operations process. CCP would be wise to limit the removal of restrictions to 0.5 security systems instead of a blanket removal. Security 0.5 systems are the fringe of high-sec offering all the "protection" of being in high-sec it also will give the "small" corps a foothold AND competition for moons. With the competition it would force novices to learn the mechanics better and give them a choice of working to increasing the standings with an empire to open more locations fostering a commitment (even if marginal) to the region of space they operate in.
Lifting the restrictions on only 0.5 space IMHO would be more pragmatic, logical, and balanced. Also it will allow more corps to "cut their teeth" on POS ops and maybe make them more secure in their abilities to pursue low-sec operations if that is the direction a corp decides to pursue
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 11:39:00 -
[31] - Quote
Sigras wrote:A few things on this: 1. a POS gives you a 45% bonus to copying which is a huge deal for inventors (though I agree, I dont see much research being done in a POS unless they have extra CPU) 2. nobody ever looses BPOs to a POS bash in high sec. You get a 24 hour notice if anyone is going to attack your tower; you can even have your phone alert you to a war dec. This gives you 24 hours to get your BPOs out of the tower and put away before you can be attacked. If you cant be asked to log in after you get a notification that someone has war decced you, maybe POS mechanics arent for you? 3. Given that only the laziest of the lazy lose BPOs in a POS I dont think that they're going to be as common as you may think
I would have to disagree with 2 & 3 in the above quote. Irregardless of the fact of lower risk of loss in high-sec and external utilities to notify a player of wars or the perception of only the lazy would lose forcing the BPO into a POS for work, specifically the R&D aspect is counter-intuitive. It seems that people forget that Eve: online is a game and real world situations take precedence over entertainment. Computers crash, internet connections go down, and many worse things can happen outside of a player's control.
Eve of course is a game of potential loss and that is acceptable in and unto itself. However for industrialists BPOs are very close to being on par with time and isk spent on SP and Standings especially for the independents and small groups where loss of BPOs would cripple their abilities to come back from large losses due to whatever reason. If something was ever introduced that could affect a player's skills or standings negatively in their absence there would be a revolt. Of course the argument can and will be made that BPOs are transferable assets, which is true, however the also convey an ability to do something and are fundamental necessity in that regard.
Granted many players get their enjoyment on the suffering of others whether the suffering player deserves it or not. Also gods forbid that anyone argues in the favor of fairness. Even though the changes as stated will affect me only on the nuisance level I do feel this part of the changes affect on gameplay is in need of being represented.
Setting aside the grief junkies position, removal of remote from station is a bad idea on many levels that I have pointed out in the past and I believe firmly. Hell, even if a small/micro corp loses multiple billions with a POS bashed and offices assets impounded due to failure to pay office rental it wouldn't garner the Rage-quit that someone would have coming back after an absence and losing key abilities and assets. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:08:00 -
[32] - Quote
I continue to hold the position that a total removal of anchoring restrictions is a bad idea. Originally I was completely against it, but after further thought have concluded that having it limited to the lowest security in high-sec (0.5) would be of benefit to both entry level POS managing corps AND established corps willing to commit to allying themselves with a particular empire faction.
All of the comparisons/analogies I've seen comparing this particular change to previous changes and examples lack common ground or parity. I can even further the argument by saying a group or individual investing in the faction of one empire runs foul of the opposing faction and their allies. Case in point this character is a Gallente aligned industrialist, and is "shoot on site" by Caldari and Amarr navies. A complete removal will lend to a noncommital approach to gameplay where only the Faction Warfare players are at risk venturing into enemy territories.
The mechanics that allow players/corps anchor a POS in high-sec also has the side affect on where those players can venture most importantly in wars between corps or alliances. Again empire navies will engage players in appropriate security level systems based on their standings hence preventing them from join battles in those systems, I would say it is a good thing because it forces even more strategy when attacking or defending space bound assets. Without the reason to gain the standings the rewards for doing standing missions become very less appealing since the cumulative gain was more important than the individual standing mission rewards.
The complete removal of empire standing need in anchor will have some very subtle and rippling effects in other areas. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
43
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 15:32:00 -
[33] - Quote
After 100+ pages and thousands of posts between several related threads I really hope CCP really reconsiders some of the intended changes.
Particularly...
- Complete removal of empire standings to anchor a tower (an encroachment model is better, starting at .5)
- Forcing BPOs to be at the POS (remote from office in same system works! so leave it be)
- Requiring multiple labs/arrays to achieve optimal bonuses
- Several other changes I've mentioned about a dozen times but don't feel like iterating again.
It would also be nice to make the graphical part of the new UI scalable to some degree, it takes up too much display real estate as is.
Also I've already noticed the placement of multiple idle towers in systems with ice belts by single corporations, none where from the big low or null alliances but it does show people are quite willing to squat to annoy those w/o standing req's placing in beneficial locations where the new compression arrays be of most use. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
|
|