|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Valterra Craven
170
   |
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
A dev blog on industry and still no nuking of t2 bpos to make actual t2 production competitive = a fail dev blog |
Valterra Craven
171
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Querns wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:
BPOs are suppose to be like PLEX or rare items, they are investments. Literally no one who is remotely intelligent is ever going to use a POS for copying after this change. The risk is too extreme. Sure, I keep around 1 - 2B in materials in my manufacturing POS, but my 10 - 15B worth of BPOs will never ever be taken to a POS. Why would I ever make such a risk? Unless you bring the copy time on Advanced Labs down to something obscene like .10 multiplier or give 10x the copy yield, then NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again.
Holy risk aversion, Batman. People with the stones to accept the risk will totally do it. This is how the game is changing, in most things -- accepting risk allows you to profit.
Except that now the risk is very high while the reward is very low. Manufacturing was never a very rewarding gameplay feature. |
Valterra Craven
171
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Querns wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Querns wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:
BPOs are suppose to be like PLEX or rare items, they are investments. Literally no one who is remotely intelligent is ever going to use a POS for copying after this change. The risk is too extreme. Sure, I keep around 1 - 2B in materials in my manufacturing POS, but my 10 - 15B worth of BPOs will never ever be taken to a POS. Why would I ever make such a risk? Unless you bring the copy time on Advanced Labs down to something obscene like .10 multiplier or give 10x the copy yield, then NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again.
Holy risk aversion, Batman. People with the stones to accept the risk will totally do it. This is how the game is changing, in most things -- accepting risk allows you to profit. Except that now the risk is very high while the reward is very low. Manufacturing was never a very rewarding gameplay feature. No, actually, it's really not. You get wardecced, you cancel the job, you cycle the pos to a new corporation, you restart the job. I guess this makes the job interruptible, but not truly at risk.
This is all well and good for research jobs were there is nothing of value at risk, but this changes things completely when you have manufacturing jobs and uninstalling them means you lose the minerals you installed for that job... |
Valterra Craven
171
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:29:00 -
[4] - 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.
Its a stupid idea, all you need is several alts in different corps as backups. You're goons, the second a new feature is added you *always* look for ways to circumvent it and laugh in CCPs face (see mobile bounty system in useless anoms) |
Valterra Craven
184
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:and the changes in T2 BPO copying speed won't affect that margin. You're still competing against other inventors since invention is still what will set the market price.
The point is that T2 BPOs confer a significant advantage in terms of margin when produced off them. The question then becomes is why this mechanic still exists given the state of the market today and the fact that t2 BPO's are no longer being given out. I still have seen nothing to suggest that CCP has curtailed the favoritism of certain groups of players sinse the BoB t2 BPO scandal.
Tippia wrote:
It's only a problem if it leaves Seller A without customers. The thing about the BPO portion of production is that it doesn't have the volume to do so, so A still sells his goods at a useful margin. Seller B would also be pretty stupid to undercut A that much since that just means he earns far less than he otherwise could.
I'm not suggesting that Seller B is going to immediately sell his goods 10-20% bellow seller A. The point is that seller B will ALWAYS be able to undercut Seller A be a significant margin and will always "win" the .01 isk price wars.
Therefore Seller B will always have customers, and always have margin. The same can not be said of inventors.
|
Valterra Craven
185
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle
Because they are redoing the entirety of industry and how it works and removing old legacy code etc and they STILL aren't getting rid/fixing the t2 BPO issue. That's why. |
Valterra Craven
185
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Stuff
T2 BPOs should have been removed from the game from the get go. If they are doing such massive changes to industry and STILL leave them in the game, that is wrong. They are legacy items of an age gone by. The production facts are irrelevant. The same investment arguements were made back then as well and they make little difference today. People invest billions into play styles across all of Eve and when **** hits the fan and major changes happen everyone that wanted the change is always HTFU, Well that same argument applies here. T2 BPOs should be removed from the game and investors should HTFU. |
Valterra Craven
186
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:
who cares take your unrelated whining to some other thread
Same could be said of your comments. |
Valterra Craven
189
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:15:00 -
[9] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Destiven Mare wrote:I understand CCP's real motivation to release the blogs in segments: to drum up anticipation and interest in an area that is difficult for some players to understand/care about
However, for those of us that both understand and do industry/science on a regular basis and need answers to the dozens of open questions that are raised in parts 1 and 2 in this series of blogs, we are understandably frustrated by the "Hide the ball approach" of "wait until we publish the rest of the story." The cover of "if we do it in one post, then it will be too long" is both flimsy and insulting. The industrial community is not replete with "tl:dr" types.
It is utterly infuriating for CCP to open so many different avenues in one dev blog yet fail to answer the logical questions posed by the playerbase by saying: "just wait, we will tell you later."
Don't treat us like this CCP. We deserve better. A few things you need to consider. GÖª This expansion is many months away. They are giving us time to absorb what is going on. They are giving those attending fanfest time to clarify their needs and questions. They are giving us time to identify issues.
I don't know if we "deserve" better. But that is a topic for a different post.
But I'd like to make one slight note here. Last summer expansion hit around June 6th. While no official date has been given for this one, Its likely they try to hit the same target. That is neither months away or an excuse not to release ALL of the information at one time. |
Valterra Craven
203
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 22:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Update!
[list]
All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
Still havent seen any mention of what you plan to do with the special Hyosdya mobile lab.... |
|
|
Valterra Craven
209
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We are considering increasing cargohold on Assembly Arrays, more updates as we get them.
oh god yes, please please please it's the small ones (component, probably ammo, other ones like that) that badly need extra space - larger ship ones don't (and are sometimes used as larger storage hangars).
I never understood the reasoning behind all this in the first. in Real Life assembly arrays don't store materials or finished products, they get them from storage and put them there.
Personally I think you should make hanger arrays massive and remove storage from all the other facilities, that way things can be stored and managed from one spot... |
Valterra Craven
210
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
Dei wrote:Are we sure that unlimited slots are a good thing? From a lore perspective this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are not inifinite resources on a station/starbase and there's only so much space.
I never understood people trying to justify "lore" in this way. Does it make "lore" sense to have infinite storage in stations? (I wonder how much M3 Jita currently houses....
Personally I think infinite slots is a stupid idea because it creates more problems than it solves... but its not like we are going to get a choice on the matter. |
Valterra Craven
214
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 05:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Another update. Assembly Arrays:
- Material reduction from all Assembly Arrays has been reduced from 5% to 2%.
- Advanced Assembly arrays material waste has been removed. They used to have 10% material waste, they now have 2% material reduction like the regular Assembly Arrays.
- We are considering increasing cargohold on Assembly Arrays, more updates as we get them.
Laboratories:
More details on what's happening to them since slots are going away.
Mobile labs:
- Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.7 (was 0.75)
- Time multiplier for Research TE: 0.7 (was 0.75)
- Time multiplier for copying: 0.7 (was 0.75)
- Time multiplier for invention: 0.45 (was 0.5)
Advanced Mobile labs:
- Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.75 (was 0.75)
- Time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.75)
- Time multiplier for invention: 0.5 (was 0.5)
Hyasyoda mobile labs:
- Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.65 (was 0.75)
- Time multiplier for Research TE: 0.65 (was 0.75)
- Time multiplier for invention: 0.45 (was 0.5)
I have an idea for keeping numerous pos modules relevant.
Parallelism.
In other words the "killer feature" of POS would be to allow you to break up research jobs in parallel to complete them faster.
You have two labs, you can break research up to complete twice as fast and so and so forth.
I did some rough estimates, and it looks like with a dread gur tower and assuming labs cpu cost of 500 cpu would allow you to have 15 labs at once if that's all you put on it. So to balance this you could either hugely increase the cpu cost so that it wouldn't be wise to go over 3-4 labs, or limit the amount of jobs that you could run in parallel. (I'd say balance it on the average number of labs people run now). I'd also mess with the current numbers that labs give bonuses to so that they are closer to NPC stations or remove the bonuses entirely since this is a very powerful bonus. In this way, POS don't compete with NPC/Null stations in the same way.
To be fair this could also be adapted to production jobs as well. |
|
|
| |
|