Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
364
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:28:00 -
[811] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:There are no good reasons other than grandfathering to maintain T2 BPO's Having things to aspire to in industry and having an interesting economic landscape to mess with are both pretty good reasons.
|
Jagoff Haverford
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
132
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:31:00 -
[812] - Quote
Apologies if this has been asked (or even answered) earlier in the thread. Now that slots are going away, that essentially means that there will be unlimited research slots in selected high sec stations. These slots used to be so massively oversubscribed that it was all but impossible to use them. Indeed, this situation was one of the things that pushed me out of my high sec comfort zone and into more dangerous places.
Maybe the answer will come in the "costs" dev blog later on, and there simply aren't any details yet, but I'm struggling to picture anything -- anything at all -- that would push research out of the perfect safety of NPC high sec stations once the slots and waiting times go away. Researched BPOs are by far the most valuable asset in the game to any industrialist. A dead Titan is an expensive setback, but you can always build another one. A lost BPO, on the other hand, will not only have to be repurchased, but can take months of research before it's usable for production.
I only took any BPOs out of high sec because it was so difficult (or even impossible) to research and copy them there. It will take a massively huge enormous cost differential to justify risking them outside of their safe little cocoons in high sec. I'm very anxious to see how this develops.
But enough negativity! It's great to see the long-promised industrial expansion take shape. With this many changes, nobody is going to agree with every change. It may even be amazing if I end up agreeing with the majority of them. But we've needed changes for a very long time, and I'm very appreciative to see CCP make the effort.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20843
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:36:00 -
[813] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:I still see an easy button. The T2 BPO holder always gets a copy with little overhead in producing that copy and now can produce it much faster. plus they have researched T2 BPOs. who would buy a ME -4 PE -4 BPC when there are cheaper ME 3 PE 1's on the same global contract market? What is the market for simple -4/-4 BPCs right now, when you could just as well produce them on your own?
Also, you're assuming that the BPO holders will suddenly start selling copies rather than produce from them. Is that really the best use of their industry time?
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Even if we assume a copy time of 1:1 T2 BPO's will make higher profit than currently since they will gain a significant material bonus due to extra materials becoming base materials now. Meaning higher discount in materials relative to invention compared to currently. That doesn't affect their ability to control the market, though, nor does it block inventors GÇö new or old GÇö from making profit.
Quote:However in the case of a 1:1 ratio this will mean that they still can't compete with volume... but... CCP have said they intend to make the copy time LESS than the manufacture time. Meaning that anything better than a 1:1 ratio will eventually mean that a T2 BPO holder can now run multiple lines full time instead of just 1 line. Sure, but again, the GÇ£less thanGÇ¥ reduction is there to make it possible to produce from the BPCs rather than the BPOs. I'm feeling fairly certain that it will only be so much lower that it just compensates for the added production step.
In other words, say that a Invuln II copying gets reduced to 2h/run from the current 5 (I think) and let us compare this to the current 2h8m production time. We'd then see a change along the lines ofGǪ
Currently: BPO is used for a 100-unit production run GÇö total time 213h for 100 units at the expected 2h8m/unit. Post-patch: BPO is used for a 10+ù10 copy run, and the 10 BPCs are then run in parallel GÇö total time 200 hours for the copying + 21h18m for the production = 211h8m for 100 units at 2h11m/unit. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
123
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:41:00 -
[814] - Quote
In regard to the offline POS thing, instead of only allowing one POS per moon, maybe allow 5 POSes; to be anchored at the moon's 5 Lagrange Points.
That would be 5 POSes per moon. And if they are moon mining, maybe split the resulting material between the five, rounding up.
So having multiple POSes for moon mining will only decrease their efficiency but allow for other industrial activities to take place.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
364
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:41:00 -
[815] - Quote
Jagoff Haverford wrote:Maybe the answer will come in the "costs" dev blog later on, and there simply aren't any details yet, but I'm struggling to picture anything -- anything at all -- that would push research out of the perfect safety of NPC high sec stations once the slots and waiting times go away. We really need the rest of that information, as half of the people in this thread are pulling their hair out at the prospect of things that will probably never happen.
Jagoff Haverford wrote:Researched BPOs are by far the most valuable asset in the game to any industrialist. A dead Titan is an expensive setback, but you can always build another one. A lost BPO, on the other hand, will not only have to be repurchased, but can take months of research before it's usable for production. I understand what you are trying to say, but your example isn't well chosen. A Titan costs more to replace than a well researched Titan BPO. Researched Titan BPOs are not in short supply and haven't been for some time, you can usually get well researched ones for less than NPC price.
Jagoff Haverford wrote:With this many changes, nobody is going to agree with every change. It may even be amazing if I end up agreeing with the majority of them. But we've needed changes for a very long time, and I'm very appreciative to see CCP make the effort. +1
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1255
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:46:00 -
[816] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
Currently: BPO is used for a 100-unit production run GÇö total time 213h for 100 units at the expected 2h8m/unit. Post-patch: BPO is used for a 10+ù10 copy run, and the 10 BPCs are then run in parallel GÇö total time 200 hours for the copying + 21h18m for the production = 211h8m for 100 units at 2h11m/unit.
Except that is fail maths. Because it's not the most efficient method post patch. Even if we take your 'almost identical time'. What actually happens is you run one line on the copies, then a second line gets run every time that 8 minute saving loops into 2 hours. Making for.... Hey, wouldn't you know it. 2 Hours/Unit. Hey presto. Higher market share.
Now if you are right and the copy time is barely different, it won't change the market share 'much', However that 'much' will still be enough in several edge cases to tip the market on smaller volume items relative to the number of T2 BPO's out there.
And to whoever it was trying to claim 'Something to aspire to' T2 BPO's are not something to aspire to, because you can not make them new. Buying someone's cast off means either you got ripped off and paid enough for them to part with something profitable, in which case you paid far too much isk i.e. scam, or it was a basically non profitable T2 BPO, and you paid too much isk, i.e. scam. Aspiring to things implies you can actually achieve them new, not hand me downs of a poorly grandfathered item. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:53:00 -
[817] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Aeonidis wrote:I still see an easy button. The T2 BPO holder always gets a copy with little overhead in producing that copy Well that clearly isn't true. At least think about what you post.
so little is relative to the reader? they drop in an R.dB and some data sheets for modules? to the inventor thats little when you consider the previous changes that were made to research agents and FW making datacores essentially a buy only product now. which of course can be lost in the invention process unlike the R.dB or other consumables for T2BPO copying. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20843
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:54:00 -
[818] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Except that is fail maths. Because it's not the most efficient method post patch. Even if we take your 'almost identical time'. What actually happens is you run one line on the copies, then a second line gets run every time that 8 minute saving loops into 2 hours. Making for.... Hey, wouldn't you know it. 2 Hours/Unit. Hey presto. Higher market share. Sure. I'm talking about a single run, mainly to illustrate the point, and you're showing what happens if you keep running on repeat GÇö the previous run's copies are absorbed into the time the second run is being copied.
The point is still the same: the goal is not to increase production output GÇö it's to counter delays in the copy+produce cycle. That difference is so small as to make pretty much no difference in the overall supply for these high-volume items, and it will still be the inventors that control the market. The BPO holders still can't compete on volume because their volumes will be pretty much the same. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
364
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:54:00 -
[819] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sure, but again, the GÇ£less thanGÇ¥ reduction is there to make it possible to produce from the BPCs rather than the BPOs. I'm feeling fairly certain that it will only be so much lower that it just compensates for the added production step. I expect much the same thing.
Currently a lot of T2 BPOs are being produced from using POS arrays to gain a higher production output. This increased production output from POS arrays is likely to remain in some form.
Some T2 BPOs are even being produced from in player owned outposts, with even greater production output bonuses, although I will join you in admiring the size of the balls required to take those kinds of risks with a T2 BPO. This possibility will remain (and be encouraged) by the new functionality.
In the future we are expecting to see a copy time reduction on T2 BPOs that makes it viable to produce from BPCs rather than produce from the BPO itself. But will that be true when comparing copying in a safe NPC hi-sec station to producing in faster facilities? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3347
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:55:00 -
[820] - Quote
Querns wrote:I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array?
Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details. |
|
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
365
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:58:00 -
[821] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Aeonidis wrote:I still see an easy button. The T2 BPO holder always gets a copy with little overhead in producing that copy Well that clearly isn't true. At least think about what you post. so little is relative to the reader? they drop in an R.dB and some data sheets for modules? to the inventor thats little when you consider the previous changes that were made to research agents and FW making datacores essentially a buy only product now. which of course can be lost in the invention process unlike the R.dB or other consumables for T2BPO copying. What about the truely massive opportunity cost of having a T2 BPO rather than it's value in isk? |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1473
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:59:00 -
[822] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Will we be able to select several single run bpc's to run multiple invention/manufacturing jobs at once? ? +1 |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
365
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:59:00 -
[823] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details. This is what us waiting looks like.
There is already blood on the dance floor. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
366
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:03:00 -
[824] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Will we be able to select several single run bpc's to run multiple invention/manufacturing jobs at once? ? That will probably be part of the UI changes. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:04:00 -
[825] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Aeonidis wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Aeonidis wrote:I still see an easy button. The T2 BPO holder always gets a copy with little overhead in producing that copy Well that clearly isn't true. At least think about what you post. so little is relative to the reader? they drop in an R.dB and some data sheets for modules? to the inventor thats little when you consider the previous changes that were made to research agents and FW making datacores essentially a buy only product now. which of course can be lost in the invention process unlike the R.dB or other consumables for T2BPO copying. What about the truely massive opportunity cost of having a T2 BPO rather than it's value in isk?
your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade. |
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
143
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:05:00 -
[826] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array? Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.
so my question - will different types of jobs installed at POS (say, 1x supercap, 1x capital, 3 subcaps, and a shedload of ammo) affect each other's cost scaling? should this be waiting for the appropriate blog too? For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it WILL be. |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
103
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:06:00 -
[827] - Quote
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:Running an empty POS in highsec is extremely low risk. Focusing on minutia is what creates the garbage in these threads. You ask for elaboration, then pick on one unimportant detail. You should be thanking him for answering your question, instead.
Or you could actually take the time to figure out the context of my statement and realize that we are talking about a POS which is full of blueprints being researched. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
366
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:06:00 -
[828] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Aeonidis wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Aeonidis wrote:I still see an easy button. The T2 BPO holder always gets a copy with little overhead in producing that copy Well that clearly isn't true. At least think about what you post. so little is relative to the reader? they drop in an R.dB and some data sheets for modules? to the inventor thats little when you consider the previous changes that were made to research agents and FW making datacores essentially a buy only product now. which of course can be lost in the invention process unlike the R.dB or other consumables for T2BPO copying. What about the truely massive opportunity cost of having a T2 BPO rather than it's value in isk? your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade. You really are just being silly now. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20847
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:07:00 -
[829] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade. Eh, no. The opportunity cost doesn't go away GÇö they still have the opportunity to just turn that BPO into liquid cash. Moreover, many current BPO holders were not around for (or did not win) the lottery and had to buy them later. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
ST Mahan
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:09:00 -
[830] - Quote
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array? Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details. so my question - will different types of jobs installed at POS (say, 1x supercap, 1x capital, 3 subcaps, and a shedload of ammo) affect each other's cost scaling? should this be waiting for the appropriate blog too?
Who gets the ISK for the job installation; the corp or is it a sink? Sounds like it is an ISK sink, which doesn't make sense for a player owned structure.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20847
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:11:00 -
[831] - Quote
ST Mahan wrote:Who gets the ISK for the job installation; the corp or is it a sink? Sounds like it is an ISK sink, which doesn't make sense for a player owned structure. If you mean the congestion charge, it gets sunk. Think of it as a tax on being able to infinitely expand your POS capability. Any other fees set by the corp go to the corp.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Abyss Azizora
Astro Industrial Technologies
96
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:14:00 -
[832] - Quote
1. Are you aware that by removing standing's requirements for POS's you are basically removing 80% of the purpose of having standings from the game? (Only reason to still have it will be jumpclones.)
2. You are killing standings boosting services/professions like mine. Hence and entire income source I spent over two years building with 9 characters.
3. QUOTE: "Allow Starbases to be anchored "anywhere" in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course)."
Does that means moons are no longer required? Hence these can be placed in infinite ammounts anywhere in highsec systems? |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:14:00 -
[833] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aeonidis wrote:your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade. Eh, no. The opportunity cost doesn't go away GÇö they still have the opportunity to just turn that BPO into liquid cash. Moreover, many current BPO holders were not around for (or did not win) the lottery and had to buy them later.
seriously if that were the case there would be dozens up on the market for every module and ship in the game at any given time. but there aren't, why? because its more profitable to copy and manufacture from them instead. None of this doesn't change the fact that T2Bpo's are an outdated and broken mechanic that pulls a vast sum of ISK into the hands of a very few players at the expense of the entire marketplace. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:15:00 -
[834] - Quote
think of it as overtime for the station crew
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3071
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:15:00 -
[835] - Quote
ISK sink = you're paying the workers in your facility. and for repairs, and for retooling the lines as needed. Or something.
I'd expect/hope that POS costs are lower as a baseline, as you're paying for fuel as well. But it can work out. (paying for the faster production time)
Need more blogs. Any real discussion on this isn't possible until we have the whole picture. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:16:00 -
[836] - Quote
Abyss Azizora wrote:
Does that means moons are no longer required? Hence these can be placed in infinite ammounts anywhere in highsec systems?
Devs responded in an earlier post that moons will still be required for anchoring |
Dast Aldurald
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:17:00 -
[837] - Quote
ok, all this is interesting but: 1) no standing needed for pos? really? ah i see, this is due to another part of update, miners will need poses to refine their ore(btw ofwar with miner corp is so sweet for high sec gankers) 2) better copy time for every bpo? t2bpo's owners will like it though it would be quite hard for those who invents to compete with older players in t2 production. 3) to build smth i need to take its bpo to a pos: great time for all large highsec\low sec corporations they just need to declare offwar come and take my money(just don't tell me stories about mighty, nearly invincible high-sec pos, cause it's not a killing machine even with a gunner online)
so what do we have? you'll need to take a bpo to the pos every time you want to manufacture\copy\invent\me\pe it(great job!), its always in danger while you producing smth; you cant lock it down so you're alone or you can trust smb and see what happens, and yes for all this you pay just 400kk per month, so isnt this awsome?
though now i believe i can see future, cause i started to learn skills for a carrier this autumn and almost ready for nullsec journey
thank you again for the patch and let the era of highsec pos'o'war begin |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
139
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:17:00 -
[838] - Quote
I've looked through every dev post and still not seen this answered yet.
Are the extra materials going to be considered the base materials now with wastage added on? I'm not quite sure how this is going to work with invented T2 BPCs, as some T2 ship BPCs for example will end up requiring multiple T1 ships to construct. Is this working as intended?
If so then T2 items will be requiring more materials, unless you are lucky enough to own a fully researched T2 BPO. So again, another buff for T2 BPO holders. |
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space BORG Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:28:00 -
[839] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array? Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.
On top of the fuel costs? POS users have to pay twice otherwise... once to keep the tower running, and a second time to pay those additional scaling costs? Will this be compensated by lowering the initial fuel costs the POS eats up? Or by giving them extremely great scaling conditions? Otherwise POS users may not be able to compete with prices of station users.
On another topic:
Being unable to anchor BPOs at a POS also gives a low punch to all corporations having their BPOs anchored in stations without any production or research/copy slots.
I do hope POS will see big upgrades in the future making anchoring BPOs possible, making them compete price wise and so on, otherwise those who go through putting up a POS, putting assets at risk, will always be worse off, than those just sticking to stations. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20848
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:28:00 -
[840] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:seriously if that were the case there would be dozens up on the market for every module and ship in the game at any given time. but there aren't, why? In many cases, because people are bad at maths and don't understand opportunity costs. You don't have to look around much to find BPOs for sale, nor do you have to do much maths to notice that it'll take you half a decade or more to earn them backGǪ and yet people buy them.
Quote:None of this doesn't change the fact that T2Bpo's are an outdated and broken mechanic that pulls a vast sum of ISK into the hands of a very few players at the expense of the entire marketplace. It's not really a fact, though, nor is it any different from how any other manufacturing works.
Hexatron Ormand wrote:On top of the fuel costs? POS users have to pay twice otherwise... once to keep the tower running, and a second time to pay those additional scaling costs? Well, you could always try not to overload the industry arrays and anchor more of them instead to keep the cost down. Or at least that seems like the most logical way it'll work right now, but we'll know better in devblog 5. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |