EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Building better Worlds

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Building better Worlds

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 315	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:04:00 - [961] - Quote Neato. I'm excited about the POS anchering change, 'though I do feel badly about all those folk that are SOL (corp anchering services). The interface looks much better, and I'm excited to hear about the 'team' aspect of building and ship building. I'm not exactly sure how it works now, but is there any way to have corporate offices make blue prints available for corp use in an NPC station? It would facilitate teamwork. Happy to have the extra materials removed. This is a much needed change and I really want to see how the 'Teams' portion of this shapes up. I'd love to be able to pay players to assist in part of the job creation / mineral and parts contribution... +1
Mila Joevovich Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:04:00 - [962] - Quote Weaselior wrote: Mila Joevovich wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: Xe'Cara'eos wrote: can we turn off the new interface and use the old one that we all know and love/hate? No, but we may be able to offer some counselling Welcome to EVE....where if you don't like it, not only will we tell you kiss our collective arses....we'll even throw in a smarmy developer comment at no charge Seriously. this does nothing but reinforce the perception that you aren't listening and could not care less about any input from the player base...of course, that assumes you had any concern in the first place. You know what they say about ssumptions....ooopps, guess I better put on my donkey ears. anyone who liked the old interface needs the counseling for re-integration into society Because, how you think is all that matters.....oh wait, you're a goon....I'm so sorry to question you....we're not worthy
Jagoff Haverford Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team 135	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:05:00 - [963] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details. What is this "waiting" thing that you speak of?
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 5592	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:08:00 - [964] - Quote Mila Joevovich wrote: Weaselior wrote: Mila Joevovich wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: Xe'Cara'eos wrote: can we turn off the new interface and use the old one that we all know and love/hate? No, but we may be able to offer some counselling Welcome to EVE....where if you don't like it, not only will we tell you kiss our collective arses....we'll even throw in a smarmy developer comment at no charge Seriously. this does nothing but reinforce the perception that you aren't listening and could not care less about any input from the player base...of course, that assumes you had any concern in the first place. You know what they say about ssumptions....ooopps, guess I better put on my donkey ears. anyone who liked the old interface needs the counseling for re-integration into society Because, how you think is all that matters.....oh wait, you're a goon....I'm so sorry to question you....we're not worthy The community as a whole has begged for a better industry interface for the last decade. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base.
Anders Madeveda Sturmgrenadier Inc 14	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:08:00 - [965] - Quote CCP giveth and CCP taketh away... Taking away the useless and cumbersome "Extra Materials"...Good thing Taking away the standings requirements for POS anchoring...I'm neutral and also curious about what standings will mean now short of being able to travel in Empire space unimpeded by their respective military's. Taking away designated slots in stations when combined with the change to remote research of BPO's just means that slots normally used for production will be filled with BPO's in research and the barrier to entry for small manufacturers will go up significantly. This in turn will affect the price of Ammo, small mods etc as most larger manufacturers focus on Hulls and T2 items. This change will cause tears in the short term and I don't think CCP has thought out the chain of events that this will unleash. Taking away the ability to remote research/manufacture BPO's is forcing everyone who makes manufacturing a career into a style of game play they do not want(at least on those respective alts). I think its very troubling that CCP believes the risked BPO's will probably be cruiser or below. Most manufacturers I know only build battlecruisers and above in POS's leaving the smaller items and hulls to entry level manufacturers in stations. The unknown in this is the revised BPO copy times, done correctly this issue becomes moot and the risk more manageable. My take from all this is simply that CCP needs to release all the Dev Blogs more quickly so that training and tactics can be amended accordingly. Additionally CCP should have made this Dev blog the first in the series as it is a much larger strategic change than reprocessing ever was.
Mila Joevovich Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:10:00 - [966] - Quote Sunrise Aigele wrote: Mila Joevovich wrote: Welcome to EVE....where if you don't like it, not only will we tell you kiss our collective arses....we'll even throw in a smarmy developer comment at no charge Seriously. this does nothing but reinforce the perception that you aren't listening and could not care less about any input from the player base...of course, that assumes you had any concern in the first place. You know what they say about ssumptions....ooopps, guess I better put on my donkey ears. What is your input? What do you keep from the current interface? What is it about the one mockup that we have been shown that you don't like? If you want them to care about your input, first you have to provide input! For myself, I will be happy to never see the old interface again. You are correct...no sarcasm intended. I did not take issue with that...I really disliked the developer comment that seemed to totally disregard what I thought was an honest question (admittedly it may have been saecasm in the first place but, the dev comment was...you get the picture)
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 6972	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:13:00 - [967] - Quote Mila Joevovich wrote: Because, how you think is all that matters.....oh wait, you're a goon....I'm so sorry to question you....we're not worthy i say that not as a goon but a functional human being and all other functional human beings, including the ones that spend all their time trying to kill us, agree with me put a stake through that ui's heart before its buried just to be sure Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 6972	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:15:00 - [968] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. What does that mean for assembly arrays: they are more efficient (i.e. less minerals) or just faster? Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Sunrise Aigele Pemberley Enterprises BadWrongFun 28	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:15:00 - [969] - Quote Mila Joevovich wrote: You are correct...no sarcasm intended. I did not take issue with that...I really disliked the developer comment that seemed to totally disregard what I thought was an honest question (admittedly it may have been saecasm in the first place but, the dev comment was...you get the picture) The developer comment referenced the widely held view that the industry UI is a violation of the Geneva Convention for ten years running. If there is some part of it that you genuinely wish CCP to keep, now is the time to tell them.
Proton Power Evolution Northern Coalition. 7	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:18:00 - [970] - Quote So I already pay my 500mil or so a month for POS fuel, I did my missions (or in my case paid someone else to get me standings), and now I will be taxed to use the same POS on top of fuel, while I also need to put my BPO's in said POS to do what I do today... Not liking some of this tbh. I can get over the changes for most part, but taxing the POS is strange to me, I alrady pay my tax via the fuel & charters. This sounds more and more like nothing but a change to create a major isk sink.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 3857	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:19:00 - [971] - Quote CCP Phantom wrote: Industry plays a central role in EVE Online and thus the developers have put their focus on improving the whole industry landscape in New Eden - the user interface, game mechanics, features, accessibility ... just everything gets examined, polished and reworked. CCP Ytterbium comes with news of massive changes in EVE Online's Industry in Summer 2014 and beyond. Read all about these suggestions and ideas in CCP Ytterbium's latest dev blog Building better Worlds. Please all reply with your constructive feedback, thank you! An overview of dev answers to common questions New blueprint browser will show all blueprints regardless if they are in stations, assembly arrays or elsewhere. The new industry UI is going to reduce the number of clicks to install a job. Installation of batch and single blueprint jobs should be as painless as possible. More about this in an upcoming blog. Jobs can be started remotely from containers as well. Existing R.A.M. and R.db (stock, stored in market orders etc.) will be updated with the coming changes, not only the blueprint requirements. Volumes of R.A.M. and R.db will get adjusted. 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. Bonuses of upgrades on player owned outposts will be altered. More about that in an upcoming blog. Starbase towers can be anchored in any system in high security space with the exception of a few restricted systems like rookie systems and trade hubs like Jita - same restriction as with player owned customs offices. POS still need to be anchored at moons, just the standing restrictions will be lifted. Blueprints can still be locked down at stations, that is not going to change. At least the changes in blueprints (no extra materials etc.) will beavailable in the Static Data Export. Access via CREST will be worked on as well. Success and fun of industry game play should not be about mastering an imperfect user interface. Phantom, thank you for updating the first post like this. You are a God among Men!!!!
Dinsdale Pirannha Pirannha Corp 2674	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:19:00 - [972] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Max Kolonko 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. Wait, what?! So what is my incentive to pay 300 000 000 isk a month for fuel if i still have to pay for production slots???? Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. How do you know, unless someone on the CSM or CCP told you? Why don't you give us the precise information, since you already know it and are making market moves to maximize profit? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook.
Liberty Belle Yulai Heavy Industries The Serenity Initiative 4	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:20:00 - [973] - Quote There's alot to be excited about here but I'm sorry, something more better be explained soon about the benefits of taking billions upon billions in ISK of capital prints to a POS. And it would seem that the lockdown mechanic (for better or worse) is dead. The POS research better yield not just a minor, but rather a substantial cost / value for blueprint production, and this also means that a corp and/or individuals now have to remain on 24 hour war Dec watch? People do have lives outside the game, if you didn't know. Do you think it would be possible to keep some kind of standings mechanic that would allow you to either use the NPC station for remote POS research or drop a new structure for BPOs to provide concord "protection"? Then you can still have an ISK sink, but something that falls in between the proposed station charge and the unprotected POS? My overall concern is the babysitting aspect of this and I can only count on one hand folks I would ever trust to pick up my Capital library and move, emergency or not.
Steijn Quay Industries 456	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:21:00 - [974] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. We already pay a charge via a starbase charter which allows us to deploy a POS in NPC high sec space. Now all of a sudden, said NPC are wanting a tax payable in order for us to use our own POSs. WTF? This just seems so far fetched that its ridiculous.
Ayumi Shekki Thee Almitee Ones The Unforgiven Alliance 6	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:22:00 - [975] - Quote Alliance POS Usage Researching Currently in EVE there is no way for another corp (whether in the same alliance or not) to open up a POS structure containing a corp hangar and see inside it, unless you are the owning POS corp. Another corp CAN put items into an array but they disappear into a black hole lost forever (or until a GM retrieves them). That alone is the cause of why POS alliance and public research is broken. Since you now know that you can assume correctly that an alliance corp (not the POS owning corp) cannot do ANY of the following things: They cannot use ANY of the manufacturing arrays They cannot do invention, BP copying or tech II BPO research at a POS Lab They cannot use a corp hangar array The reason they cannot do the above is simple, to build anything in a manufacturing array requires the materials to be in the manufacturing arrays corp hangar. Since only the owning POS corp can see in that hangar it's impossible for anyone else to do manufacturing at the array. If another corp does put items into the manufacturing array they disappear into a black hole. They cannot do invention for the same reason, invention requires materials to be inside the POS Lab array, same applies to Tech II BPO researching, the job requires materials to do so you cannot do the job. Blueprint copying produces a BPC inside the Lab array and since only the owning corp can access it the blueprint copy another corp produces would not be accessible. In fact I'm pretty sure due to changes in the recent patches that you cannot put a copying job on now anyway, for the reasons already stated above. That means the BPO has to be put in a corp hangar (cannot be put on from a personal hangar) in a station or outpost in the same solarsystem as the POS, this means the corp must have an office in that station and be part of the same alliance. The Scientific Networking skill does NOT change this requirement, the SN skill simply allows you to be remote to the BPO and POS Labs, it still requires the BPO to be in a corp hangar in a station or outpost in the same solarsystem as the POS Labs. The only jobs that do not require materials or output anything is Tech I ME and PE research, so an alliance corp is limited to this.
Dinsdale Pirannha Pirannha Corp 2674	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:23:00 - [976] - Quote Questions I have not seen a dev answer: 1. Will the 14% surcharge be calculated on the raw material cost of the products, or the estimated sell value? I assume that CCP will use the mechanism that calculates the value of an item in my hangar now. 2. Will someone be able to lock down BPO's at a POS, like they can at a station? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook.
Proton Power Evolution Northern Coalition. 7	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:23:00 - [977] - Quote Steijn wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. We already pay a charge via a starbase charter which allows us to deploy a POS in NPC high sec space. Now all of a sudden, said NPC are wanting a tax payable in order for us to use our own POSs. WTF? This just seems so far fetched that its ridiculous. Lol read my post about 5 above yours, I said same thing.. We already pay taxes, fuel and risk. Now they want us to take more risk with BPO's, okay will work it out, but now they want me to pay tax to build in the POS just like the station as well.. Its nothing but an isk sink.
Proton Power Evolution Northern Coalition. 7	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:24:00 - [978] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Questions I have not seen a dev answer: 1. Will the 14% surcharge be calculated on the raw material cost of the products, or the estimated sell value? I assume that CCP will use the mechanism that calculates the value of an item in my hangar now. 2. Will someone be able to lock down BPO's at a POS, like they can at a station? 1 - Nobody knows yet. 2 - No.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 5594	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:25:00 - [979] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Max Kolonko 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. Wait, what?! So what is my incentive to pay 300 000 000 isk a month for fuel if i still have to pay for production slots???? Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. How do you know, unless someone on the CSM or CCP told you? Why don't you give us the precise information, since you already know it and are making market moves to maximize profit? Umm perhaps because he works for CCP? Just a guess mind you. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 394	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:26:00 - [980] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Max Kolonko 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. Wait, what?! So what is my incentive to pay 300 000 000 isk a month for fuel if i still have to pay for production slots???? Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. How do you know, unless someone on the CSM or CCP told you? Why don't you give us the precise information, since you already know it and are making market moves to maximize profit? Uhhhhhh Did you even look to see who you were quoting before you let this one escape? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Benny Ohu Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence 2922	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:26:00 - [981] - Quote Mila Joevovich wrote: Weaselior wrote: anyone who liked the old interface needs the counseling for re-integration into society Because, how you think is all that matters.....oh wait, you're a goon....I'm so sorry to question you....we're not worthy it's not that his opinion matters more because he's a goon it's that your opinion matters less because you're an npc alt
Steijn Quay Industries 456	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:29:00 - [982] - Quote Proton Power wrote: Steijn wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. We already pay a charge via a starbase charter which allows us to deploy a POS in NPC high sec space. Now all of a sudden, said NPC are wanting a tax payable in order for us to use our own POSs. WTF? This just seems so far fetched that its ridiculous. Lol read my post about 5 above yours, I said same thing.. We already pay taxes, fuel and risk. Now they want us to take more risk with BPO's, okay will work it out, but now they want me to pay tax to build in the POS just like the station as well.. Its nothing but an isk sink. I read up to p34 this morning, not gone through the rest yet. With me, it wont be more risk that happens, it will be POS unanchored and 2 accounts of researchers permanently unsubbed.
Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 1341	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:31:00 - [983] - Quote it's really hard to comment on the thread without having actual numbers and more details on the whole slot cost scaling GRRR Goons
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 6976	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:32:00 - [984] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: How do you know, unless someone on the CSM or CCP told you? Why don't you give us the precise information, since you already know it and are making market moves to maximize profit? ahahahahahahahahahahaha good one dinny Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 5	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:33:00 - [985] - Quote I have read this thread up to page 27 and I have to say I know what God was thinking with that flood idea. The amount of informed constructive criticism here is completely minuscule. Therefore I thought I would offer some. First, the good stuff. This is going to be an amazing and wonderful expansion. Thank you CCP. We are seeing a tremendous amount of out of the box thinking. While this is still a revamp expansion like the last few, the changes are so extensive that it truly feels like we are getting something so new as wormholes or capital ships. Of course with so much innovation the chance for creating imbalance is quite high, in contrast with the previous expansions where actual innovation has been minimal, and the revamping accomplished has been definitely successful and positive. Also, because this dev blog is an installment, it's difficult to comment on much of it, particularly when it comes to the effects of the numbers (namely the cost scaling) because these numbers have not been announced. Even when things go live on Sisi, we won't really be able to predict the effects of things on the real market on tranquility because we'll need the real market player base to know how things will turn out. Matthew McConaughey in Wolf of Wall Street: "nobody really knows if the stock is going to go up or down. All this we do is basically ***********." Yes, old vets will quit because of this, new Indy guys will be attracted. Professions will be destroyed (standings corps) but new ones will be created. People talk about the harm to invention, but for one, invention will be changing in a later expansion, and frankly, when looking to buy T2 BPCs in game I have had trouble finding professional inventors because inventors are really alts and builders do their own invention. Frankly, it sounds like the guy who doesn't want to relocate will buy copies and components from people who can make them cheaper than they can make them themselves, creating more professions and markets as well as decentralizing the market and creating more trade hubs. Overall, the general trend of how things will be will be different, and from my initial ponderings, will likely be better in most ways. And with promises of revamping the Rorqual and invention in future expansions, we know that Indy will continue to get love after the summer. Overall a great situation. Now for my advice. It's always better to make a smaller tweak that you can tweak again in the future than to make a larger change that you have to undo. Yes, this thinking has resulted in some underwhelming expansions in the last couple of years, and an audacious one like this is a breath of fresh air. However, it might be important to look at things to change small ways, particularly since so much of this expansion can't really be tested until it is actually live on Tranquility. Now all of the things in this category are in the realm of numbers and scaling costs, which are yet to be tackled, so hopefully this advice will be timely. I would suggest that the most significant changes to cost via the scaling costs be limited primarily to manufacturing. Please keep the scaling costs of material and time research as well as copying be very small if not even non-existent. Since the changes to blueprint location will drive builders to use copies, it will be very hard to predict how many copies will be made. It's likely to be astronomical. If making copies are heavily affected by scaling costs, production costs will become harder to predict and a new bottleneck of a different type will be created. I suggest that making copies, in addition to making them faster, not be affected by scaling costs. Also, since extra materials are being moved to normal materials but not being removed, material research will become more important, and I also hope that the cost of material research be minimal. Yes, the idea seems to offer the builder who is concerned about profit to diversify location, but having so many variables affected considerably by scaling costs will force builders to copy in one place, build in another, research in another, etc. this will mean more alts and multiboxing and 1-man corps that perpetuates a building style not available to players who can't afford all the accounts or who aren't already mega rich enough to PLEX all the alts. Adding scaling costs to manufacturing will have the intended effect of creating hubs and fostering diverse location without the extra annoyance. So hopefully scaling costs associated with research and copying will be minimal or non existent. The UI looks beautiful. I can't wait to learn about it in detail. Kudos on the removal of standings requirements for hisec POSes. Comments lamenting this are the most ridiculous thus far. However, the need for a mechanic to be rid of the inert POSes is about the most valid point anyone has made here. My suggestion is that they be CONCORDed after 60 days of inactivity. It's the most colorful solution I could think of. And please have an impending CONCORDing of a POS be announced in local with a bookmark so anyone in system can come watch and cheer. That's about all the constructive criticism I have at this time. I'll say I am most looking forward to the teams blog, as I have a feeling this one is really going to be the true game changer. I have three accounts and have trained all three toons on each account to be functional. However, I only have one true Indy pilot, one combat toon, and one mostly combat multifunctional toon. The rest are just manufacturing and lab slot sources and sell order sources. I have a friend who just can't afford to active multiple training queues or run multiple accounts. He's a one account one toon guy. If he could really build an Indy empire like I have, the game will be much better off. This expansion took some serious balls. Thanks CCP.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5188	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:42:00 - [986] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. How do you know, unless someone on the CSM or CCP told you? Why don't you give us the precise information, since you already know it and are making market moves to maximize profit? This is your brain on tinfoil. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 9687	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:46:00 - [987] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Max Kolonko 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. Wait, what?! So what is my incentive to pay 300 000 000 isk a month for fuel if i still have to pay for production slots???? Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines. How do you know, unless someone on the CSM or CCP told you? Why don't you give us the precise information, since you already know it and are making market moves to maximize profit? Never change Dinsdale, never change. <3 Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Corraidhin Farsaidh Hello-There 363	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:47:00 - [988] - Quote I don't think that many people if any will quit because of this, we are being warned waaaaay in advance of the changes to come, People will simply adapt to the new ways or do something else that suits them instead. As far as I can tell these changes will mean greater reward for the more proactive industrialist. I look forward to finding out more details regarding invention as soon as it is available. I really hope they allow us to use RP directly from agents at a much better rate than if you physicalize into a datacore and sell. Give research agents a reason to be used beyond a nice treat once a year at datacore sales time.
Dinsdale Pirannha Pirannha Corp 2677	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:51:00 - [989] - Quote Proton Power wrote: Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Questions I have not seen a dev answer: 1. Will the 14% surcharge be calculated on the raw material cost of the products, or the estimated sell value? I assume that CCP will use the mechanism that calculates the value of an item in my hangar now. 2. Will someone be able to lock down BPO's at a POS, like they can at a station? 1 - Nobody knows yet. 2 - No. Here are the 3 scenarios that play out. 1. Corporation keeps their BPO's locked down safe and sound in a station, and gets hit with a huge copying fee, completely out their control, as the market demand dictates the fee structure. And you KNOW that the fees will be more than what it will cost to do the copying at the POS, because CSM8 is all about risk / reward. Oh, and when I say more than the cost of doing it at a POS, I am talking about under this new world order where your internal copying costs include the new surcharge you get copying at your own POS. But you do get slightly lower costs if you choose to keep a POS up because you don't need research modules. Of course, the entire corp cam pull up stakes and move further from a trade hub, hoping to find some quiet cheap place. The opportunity cost of that is zero, because time is free in Eve, and no one ever ganks someone moving billions in BPO's. Result: Much more costly for a corp to copy / research compared to today, but equally as safe, so a NET NEGATIVE. 2. Multi-player corporation decides to move their BPO's out to their POS to take advantage of the much lower costs of using NPC station copying and also the efficiencies of the POS research, whatever they end up to be. Of course, it still costs more than today, since no one anywhere is immune to surcharges of some sort. And as an added bonus, you now have HUGE risk of corp theft since you can't lock down the BPO's. And as another lovely feature, you just pained a big bullseye on your corp by having research mods at your POS screaming "JUICY BPO's HERE, PLEASE WAR DEC US!!!!" Result: STILL more costly that today, and way way more risk, so a NET NEGATIVE. 3. Single player indy corp decides to move BPO's to take advantage of efficiencies as in scenario 2. Same risks as #2, except no corp theft. Same added cost. Result: STILL more costly that today, and way way more risk, so a NET NEGATIVE. There is no scenario here that benefits someone who is casual or serious about industry in high sec. Of course, we have yet to see the other shoe drop with all the advantages being gifted to null sec with the costing structure, but we already know that each null sec station now has unlimited mfg and research slots. Looks like mynnna, Malcanis, and the rest of the CSM rammed through the changes they wanted. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook.
Dinsdale Pirannha Pirannha Corp 2677	Posted - 2014.04.16 16:54:00 - [990] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Never change Dinsdale, never change. <3 I will change when you do. I was looking at one of the Weasel's comments that indicated he already knew about the changes, and clicked on Yitterbum's instead. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook.

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.