|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
In general I like the basic ideas being worked on. Providing flexible increasing costs for high sec is great. I am curious about the teams mentioned for the last blog, and wonder if that is a crucial piece to understanding how everything else will work. I can imagine a new game concept called teams which completely changes how all of these changes are viewed. For that reason I think the comments on these changes may have limited importance and usefulness. Still I want to mention some quick issues which may appear.
1) Abandoned POSes - We need some mechanism to remove abandoned POSes easier. 2) Tech 2 BPOS - Improving the stats (like copy speed) will make the more used putting additional pressure on all of the inventors working on similar products. 3) Land rush for Higher Security locations 1.0...
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
Teams, Slots, and Industry
The idea of blogs about teams gave me a quick possible idea for the future changes. This is pure speculation based on hints in this dev blog. I don't have any special information. I am probably wrong about some of this.
Stations are given a number of teams instead of slots. They work on everything in the queue starting with the first job entered. When they complete a job the team moves to the next job. When the team is in high demand and is required to work for many days straight then they demand higher wages (increase costs). The teams can work on ME, PE, copying, or manufacturing based on the station's facilities (station either can research ME or not). POSes are designed similarly with speed increases for various jobs. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Querns wrote:On a related note:
The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS. Right now, if you want to move your POS to a new corporation upon wardec, it takes seven (7) days for standings to promulgate to the corporation's standings. This had the effect of severely limiting the amount of "POS cycling" that could occur. With the removal of standings from the equation, it is now a reasonable response, upon being wardecced, to create a new corporation, unanchor the POS under wardec, and sit on the moon in question in a cloaked industrial sitting in the new, unwardecced corporation, ready to anchor a new pos when the old one comes up.
I suggest that a new corporation be required to wait seven (7) days before being eligible to anchor a new pos. This brings the new era in line with the convoluted, yet functional system that exists today. This is a good idea and should get implemented.
So an industrialist needs a spare corporation in reserve? I am not sure your suggestion addresses the claimed problem. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kadl wrote: So an industrialist needs a spare corporation in reserve? I am not sure your suggestion addresses the claimed problem.
tying up an alt makes it at least require a mediocum of planning to trivially avoid wardecs i would still be irritated at the ease but it would be a vast improvement you must admit
No. It just looks like an impediment to newer industrialists while older industrialists with more accounts get a pass. Designing a feature whose main focus is to hinder newer players seems foolish. The problem I see is related to the War Dec, corporation, and POS systems. All of those need real iterations to make them functional. So, yes you should be able to claim a POS or POCO location using a War Dec. Making high sec industry more convoluted does not seem like the proper solution. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kadl wrote:No. It just looks like an impediment to newer industrialists while older industrialists with more accounts get a pass. Designing a feature whose main focus is to hinder newer players seems foolish. The problem I see is related to the War Dec, corporation, and POS systems. All of those need real iterations to make them functional. So, yes you should be able to claim a POS or POCO location using a War Dec. Making high sec industry more convoluted does not seem like the proper solution. your proposal that we ought not improve things until there is a complete fix is dumb and wrong by effectively charging 1/3rd a plex for a (weak) wardec immunity, and charging 2 1/3rds plex per month for complete wardec immunity, we significantly penalize the cowardly through an easy-to-implement system that dramatically improves wardecs without requiring massive change
You are making a strawman argument by pretending I want a "complete fix." I simply identified the systems where the problem actually exists and noted their sad state.
I can propose a simple alternative fix. Make it so that anyone who places a POCO or POS in a location vacated by a waring party would immediately become subject to the war. You cannot sneak a "neutral" third party in to reclaim a location since the war could be directed at control of that space location. Note now we are using war decs to control space in high sec. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:12:00 -
[6] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kadl wrote: I can propose a simple alternative fix. Make it so that anyone who places a POCO or POS in a location vacated by a waring party would immediately become subject to the war. You cannot sneak a "neutral" third party in to reclaim a location since the war could be directed at control of that space location. Note now we are using war decs to control space in high sec.
that is not simple whatsoever and would certainly require massively reworking a lot of code it is a more elegant fix yes but it is much less likely to be implemented
It might require a bit more work on the code, but where is your evidence that it would be a massive rework?
What would they need to touch? 1) Each POS/POCO location would need an added bit of hidden data noting which corporation last used it last and the date. 2) When placing a POS/POCO a check is needed on the corporation which last used the location. War Dec history would then need to be cross referenced to identify any wars the new POS/POCO owner might be stepping into. Any wars would require a warning popup asking if the new owner wishes to accept the risk of war. If they accept the risk then the wars are added to the new corporation in the exact same state.
Any messy War Dec code can be avoided. It is now a normal war.
Hopefully a quick check can be added to the initial POS/POCO deployment code. It should return a simple yes/no to deploying, and avoid any other interactions. This could have problems, but seems possible unless you have more detailed knowledge of the code. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Chanina wrote:I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one.
Slightly higher output for T2 BPOs => Slightly lower output for invention => Slightly lower profits for invention.
Your argument is that we should ignore the benefits reaped by T2 BPO owners because they are small. I think that is a move in the wrong direction, and should be avoided. I would like CCP to make a commitment to avoid improving the overall use of T2 BPO for their owners. I am uncertain whether the overall situation will improve for T2 BPO owners. For example, will they end up being required to place their T2 BPO in a POS in order to reach the old levels of production. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Kadl wrote:Tippia wrote:Chanina wrote:I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one. Slightly higher output for T2 BPOs => Slightly lower output for invention => Slightly lower profits for invention. Your argument is that we should ignore the benefits reaped by T2 BPO owners because they are small. I think that is a move in the wrong direction, and should be avoided. I would like CCP to make a commitment to avoid improving the overall use of T2 BPO for their owners. I am uncertain whether the overall situation will improve for T2 BPO owners. For example, will they end up being required to place their T2 BPO in a POS in order to reach the old levels of production. Before we get on the "OMG T2 BPO's must die" hype train, I think we should wait and see what other changes are in store for us.
I agree that we need to see the other changes. I am not on some hype train about killing T2 BPOs. I just don't want to see them push out any inventors. I think it is fair to note some concern about T2 BPOs pressuring inventors without being accused of hyping it.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:In general, T2 BPO's are a good thing for this game. They only control a small market fraction for most items in game, they have been in the game soo long that generally those who own them worked hard to collect them, and they provide cheaper products for the general population on the markets they do control.
Furthermore, this change makes it riskier to utilize a T2 BPO, as it must be in a POS to use it at a POS, or it suffers the same line markups as everyone else (which you can use to encourage a T2 BPO holder to "move" his asset).
If the T2 BPOs must be risked to actually improve their production then that is great. It will mean slow deaths for them as those POSes are attacked. It seems to me that there are many pieces to this puzzle we don't have. People are noting many good specific concerns, but unannounced changes can tip the balance. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:Slightly higher output for T2 BPOs => Slightly lower output for invention => Slightly lower profits for invention. No, the output of T2 BPOs does not affect the output of invention, and the market prices for most T2 stuff is determined by the invention so there's very little to suggest that their profits will go down by any appreciable amount anyway. Something seems clearly wrong in your statements about supply and demand here. If as you say there is higher output for the T2 BPOs then either inventors will produce less or demand will increase. Demand increases when prices drop. Perhaps T2 inventors will merely have to accept a slightly smaller margin.
Tippia wrote:No, my argument is that we should look at the change as a whole, not pick apart small portions of it before the entire edifice is ready. If BPO owners get some minor benefit for a single expansion cycle, then so what. Wait until you know what happens to invention before complaining about what happens to invention. Right now, the same copying speed increase that benefits BPO holders benefits inventors as well, as they can react more quickly to changing markets (which is the already huge benefit they enjoy). I can agree that we need to see the other changes. At the same time I think it is fine to note that we don't want to see an general increase in production from the T2 BPOs (without an increase in risk). Since we do not have the other developments available we can merely note that the current situation looks concerning, and leave it at that. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
Please excuse the short replies, the forums ate the longer versions.
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:Something seems clearly wrong in your statements about supply and demand here. If as you say there is higher output for the T2 BPOs then either inventors will produce less or demand will increase. Demand increases when prices drop. Perhaps T2 inventors will merely have to accept a slightly smaller margin. What's wrong is that you read too much into it GÇö specifically, I'm not talking about demand at all. I'm saying that if BPO holders produce slightly more and inventors produce the same as ever, the difference in supply will be so small as to not have any appreciable effect.
It seems like you might be searching for the argument that the increase or decrease in production will not be measurable. Still you keep claiming that an increase in production from T2 BPO owners will not effect inventors with either volume or price. If it is not measurable then fine no worries, but supply and demand stands.
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:I can agree that we need to see the other changes. At the same time I think it is fine to note that we don't want to see an general increase in production from the T2 BPOs (without an increase in risk). As luck would have it, there is an increase in risk that goes along with it if they want to really make full use of that increased output potential.
If the variables of the situation require T2 BPOs to be risked in POSes for the increased value then I will happily call this situation well handled. If the copy system or other production means in stations end up increasing BPO value then the situation will have been made worse. We do not know the situation so we must wait. In the meantime it is fair to speculate by identifying this as a potential problem. |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:26:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I think you are completely overlooking how incredibly fast the process of invention will be. Most of your time is tied up waiting for slots to open up or for copies to be made. This will no longer be a factor... and you will benefit from this far more than the T2 BPO holder.
There will no longer be slots. There will be a different system. We do not know that new system. It could combine all of the industrial activities together so you might be waiting for manufacturing in order to copy. We don't know yet. The copy speed increase will be nice, and may counter other issues. We don't know yet. Given what we do know it is fair to raise the potential of T2 BPOs increasing their market share. It is also fair to suggest the ways that invention might be increase vs T2 BPOs. With those potentials noted we can be prepared to review the remaining information. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
147
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:It seems like you might be searching for the argument that the increase or decrease in production will not be measurable. Still you keep claiming that an increase in production from T2 BPO owners will not effect inventors with either volume or price. No. I haven't claimed either of those. You're confusing production with demand, somehow. If BPO holders produce more, this does not in any way affect how much inventors can produce. They simply can't. There is no connection or correlation between the two. Moreover, BPO holders produce so little that a marginal increase in their output from the BPOs is not going to affect the price in any significant way. You'd see the same variance from just a handful of inventors deciding to pick a different product this particular month.
Now it appears you are just being contrary. The issue is obviously not how much can be produced, but rather how much will be produced, and sold. How much the BPO holders produced effects how much inventors will produce because sane inventors will look to the market and decide what is worth their time to produce. As the two production streams are related via the market we are again in a situation of supply and demand. Changing your words from "can" to "will" allows us to get at the real situation.
It is entirely clear to me that your claims are just as my first sentence states. You believe that the changes will not be measurable. I have no issues with that claim since it does not violate supply and demand as you seem at times to be claiming. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
147
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:Now it appears you are just being contrary. No, I'm just not accepting your notion that the production capability of BPO holders somehow affects the production capability of inventors, seeing as how they are not in any way related. I'm also not buying the notion that the inventors' prices will be affected in any major way since the production increase from the BPOs amounts to market noise compared to how much inventors produce. Kadl wrote:The issue is obviously not how much can be produced, but rather how much will be produced, and sold. Maybe so, but that's not what you said. And again, BPOs aren't particularly significant to the supply of anything where invention is profitable. It'll be lost in the noise of inventors changing their item production from one cycle to the next.
It seems that you have missed all of my points and statements and are just continuing to argue to waste some time. I don't claim the things you state here. I never claimed that T2 BPO production capabilities would effect inventor production capabilities, only their profits, prices, and market volume. I never predicted a major movement in prices and can happily agree to entertain different predictions while we have so little data. I am not sure why you are even replying to me when you are not addressing my real arguments. I guess we both just have a bit of extra time on our hands.
My original post to you was merely noting that supply and demand work and that I don't want to see any tipping of the scales towards T2 BPO holders.
Ranger 1 wrote:Indeed, just keep in mind that any benefit in time that a T2 BPO owner is likely to see will be far more beneficial to the Invention specialist, considering all the different steps that are required in Invention and the scale on which it is usually done.
I hope that you are correct. Perhaps you are referring to the addition of copying as an expected activity to maximize T2 BPO production. That should increase the effort on their part. Both parties should have similar reductions in copying time. That actually leads me to another thought that the current total production capacity in EVE will be able to produce more T2 items. It would seem a reduction in T2 prices (nothing said about profits) is on order. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
147
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Zappity wrote:I am worried about reduced copy time devaluing invention. Please nerf T2 BPOs. No, I don't have any ;)
But they still need to be nerfed otherwise newer industry players are at an enormous disadvantage. IMHO, the worst part of T2 BPOs are the hate and discontent they create in new(er) players. No matter how long we play, we will never get a change to become an instant mega billionaire, simply by winning a T2 BPO lottery. We will always be at a SERIOUS disadvantage to other players, simply because we are newer. Real mega-advantage or not, it is the perception that creates the hate. I know CCP has a policy of not removing things, but they could buff invention so that inventors are on an equal footing with T2 BPO holders. There, didn't "remove" T2 BPO, just made them irrelevant.
I think T2 BPOs just feel wrong to many newer players, and the perceptions and feelings cause the hate. The arguments showing a lack of advantage seem pretty clear to me. At this point the T2 BPOs have been purchased and are providing minor returns. Still they cause arguments and bad feelings. It seems like reducing their power slowly honors both the investment and the frustrated feelings. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
149
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
No slots means a new system which we know extremely little about. I am sure that CCP will answer all of these in time (no need to bother answering anything here yet). Still there appear to be certain assumptions about how the remaining systems will be structured based on how they currently work. Assumptions can make fools of everyone and CCP comes up with innovative solutions.
Will congestion charges be based on specific locals (station, POS), system, other region (all of null sec), or other information (standings)?
Will there be any other congestion effects (increased time)?
Will other things delay production of an installed job? The industry window mock up has what appears to be an active job with an hour glass on it.
What are the effects of installing a job with insufficient materials (there at beginning, when item completed)? The industry window mock up shows a blue print which can apparently only be run four times, and seems to be currently running.
Will increased industry efficiency require multiple accounts (or sharing your BPOs with "friends")? After all "more people should have advantages over an individual" producer.
What does base item cost actually mean (for the 0-14% formula), particularly for research, copying, invention (14% fees to invent)?
Will there be a gimmicky whole in the cost calculation which will allow a large alliance to reduce cost for it's doctrine ships?
Will high sec stations have stats which modify production (POSes and Outposts will)?
What stats could be modified (time, efficiency, cost)?
Will the various outposts really be balanced? We know a maxed Minmatar station will have 20% mineral efficiency over high sec stations. Why go through the effort of moving those materials when your max production cost is only 14% of the end cost?
Who will get the leaked information and maximize their own wealth?
What sort of holes will exist for individuals to exploit innocently use to play the game the way CCP intended? |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
151
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:16:00 -
[16] - Quote
Abstract: Efficiency matters. CCP is creating large enough differences in efficiency that many methods may be unprofitable. Queue whining about transportation costs.
EVE_Wiki wrote:Production Efficiency - The most critical skill for any production character. After you've bought it, train it until you reach Level 5. Production Efficiency is the single biggest must-have skill to be effective and competitive when producing goods, and unlike many skills, the payoff for reaching Level 5 is worth it. ... Each level trained in this skill will reduce the skill based material multiplier of 1.25 by 4%, which effectively translates to a 5% reduction in materials used to manufacture items per skill level.
A common mistake for young industrialists is to avoid that long level 5 train. They then do their calculations and discover that they cannot profitably make things. The last 5% reduction in material costs is required to make production profitable for many items particularly T1 items. Efficiency matters.
CCP is discussing adding a 0-14% congestion fee based on "base price." As pointed out to a young industrialist that spread is sufficient to make things unprofitable. The EVE players will find the one way (or two if we are lucky) to profitably make those items. Yes everyone can make things more expensively but a real industrialist does not worry so much about the fools throwing away money.
Who will have the efficiency to produce things the one way? We can guess that Jita Station manufacturing will be around the 14% mark. Perhaps a fully upgraded player owned Amarr outpost will be nearly 0%. We don't know where POSes will be. We don't know if low or null sec will get special bonuses. Crucially we don't know the formula for how fast the number of production jobs will push up the cost of production. It is possible that one fully upgraded Amarr outpost will be able to outproduce high sec with acceptable margins. CCP does not even need to intend that consequence they just need to make a small mistake in numbers.
Transportation costs may significantly influence final costs. Even with a high efficiency null sec might have problems with transportation. I expect more whining about how hard it is to move things and how freighter sizes (or tanks) must be increased. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
151
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Rapscallion Jones wrote:Okay, all slots are removed including those for labs/arrays. So there will no longer be a need for more than one of each lab or array type at a POS, am I right?
Unknown. Additional arrays might reduce the congestion charges for your POS, or not. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
153
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Using a POS does let you know your costs ahead of time. Even with cost scaling. Because you don't have random non-members putting in jobs, and driving the cost up in a non-predictable fashion.
We don't know this because, congestion costs may be effected by a system wide job count in some way. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
153
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:25:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tora Hamaji wrote:- Add a new sizes of POS facilities: - Medium Size Lab/manufactory(10 slots of each)
- Large Size (30 slots )
- Make a Central Facilities Control module that combines all the slots from the pos in one interface! - Make it possible to install jobs with from the Personal Hangar Array! - Also, 8 divisions is not enough to run some indy corps, while other corps need 0. perhaps it's time to update that piece of code to let us choose wallet and hangar divisions?
When CCP told us about the refining and compression changes, they also mentioned modifications and additions to POS modules. I would guess that there will at least be some modifications here as well. Of course we cannot rate anything by slots any more (no more slots). |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
153
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
Susan Black wrote:Does the removal of slots also mean that FW system upgrades invoolving industrial slots will also be removed?
Will there be replacement upgrades of some kind?
Thanks
No slots so that FW benefit will disappear. It should be replaced, but reminding CCP makes sense. |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
153
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:10:00 -
[21] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec?
Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec?
I await your meager defense with baited breath. I won't wait for Malcanis to answer. I can do it. First we need to separate out what is actually S&I and what is not. ... I think they call that a Straw-Man argument. I could be wrong.
A straw man argument is made when you covertly try to replace an argument with a different argument which is easier for you to argue. The argument being made is clearly that null sec has a large variety of profitable activities. Obviously this is a much harder argument to disagree with and therefore you have chosen to ignore it.
Soldarius wrote:https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/reactions/
Moon mining, moon goo reactions, gas harvesting, and drug mfg, can only be done in 0.3 space or lower. Fullerenes (precursors to hybrid polymers) can only be gathered in w-space. So they cannot be compared to hisec except in strictly by profitability or lack thereof.
...
The primary industry in nulsec is supercapital/titan production. For years this has depended on mineral compression to function. But this summer mineral compression is getting the big ol' nerf bat.
Actually there is an easy comparison for moon mining, goo, reactions, and drug manufacturing. High Sec has a 0 for profitability in these areas and null/low sec have greater than 0 profitability. That is the point being made, that there are activities in null which are strictly more profitable then high sec. Yet again you decide to ignore the argument in order to make a more effective argument for yourself.
The comments for compression ignore CCP's current plans and intentions with ore compression.
"CCP Ytterbium" wrote:The solution is to improve compression ratios ... while tweaking the compressed ore volumes to make it competitive with current modules like the 425mm Railgun I for instance.
Your arguments on mining are interesting, particularly since CCP has tried to buff null sec mining. The sov war losses are often overblown, particularly for massive alliances in their deep blue territory, but at least there is an argument there.
Soldarius wrote:Now tell me again how much better nulsec industry is compared to hisec.
After your massive wall of text you still missed the original point. Urziel99 never claimed that null sec industry was better than high sec. He claimed that many other activities were. The point of the argument is to ask why null sec must also be better in industry if it has so many other good activities. I think it is a valid question, although I am feeling a bit undecided about the answer right now. For me it is obvious that null sec industry should be improved. But should null sec be better at everything? Should null sec be so much better at S&I that only they can produce many items for a profit? Perhaps the answer is yes, but you do not make a convincing argument when you ignore the issues. |
|
|
|