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) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
437
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:07:00 -
[2041] - Quote
Aluka 7th wrote:
...stuff...
CCP, JUST please implement cheap and "easy" way to remove POSes that are littering space. Idea like hacking POSes that are (only) anchored for more then 30 days comes in mind!
Fly unsafe!
I liked a guys idea a while ago that offlined POS over a certain length of time get rogue droned and turned into hives. This allowed for players to then blow them up for salvage/the moon slot without CONCORD interference |
Sister Hyde
Kaleidoscopes for the Blind
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 12:12:00 -
[2042] - Quote
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Lets brake this update down to what it relly means in regard to gamplay:Team cost=i have to haul lot more stuff for production spending less time on what i want to do with more risk .Smart industrial:planning loong time a head less likly to pay of shorther copy time marked change faster and to be that smart i need to hawe a lott more building matrials to be abel to change production fast,this mean a lott more isk bound up in matrials thats meens relocation of base will cost a lott more time.Refining gets nerfed:Longer skill traning means less time on other skills neded to defend your self or other corp members making it iven harder for industrials to be under war dec for a longer time playing the game.Spending iven more time on finding rigth station to produce things and calculating profitTo brake it down in short tearms invest more/produce more/spend more time/for the same amount of isk that you make to day and do less off what you want to do. This is my dislike button Your english is awful, your grammar is awful, your spelling is awful. If you can't see one of the very many blatantly obvious ways to profit greatly off this patch, you were not meant for industry. I must be awful ty ty
Your formatting is awful, as well. Your punctuation is awful. I'm not sure whether what you said was awful, because I couldn't decipher it. Does that make you awful as a person? It certainly shows disrespect to your fellow readers. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 12:12:00 -
[2043] - Quote
Easier does not equal better, but too easy equals complacency and to most boring.
Reasonable limits and restrictions encourage people to adapt inside those constraints rewarding those who do so giving them an edge in tactics and economic competition.
Removing starbase restrictions in high-sec are counter intuitive, especially in light of changes to NPC stations' manufacturing and research abilities. The removal of restrictions has much less to do with S&I than it does as a balancing element. I'm amazed the low and null groups aren't making the point for me. Every corporation that was using a POS in 0.4 space because the group couldn't get together to maintain a minimal standing with an empire long enough to set one (or at least should considering the risks that they will face related to other points I've made repeatedly in the past)
Just for those who don't know the limits as they are now verse the rewards I will explain
- 0.5 is the lowest security systems in high sec, they have the full protection against capitals and start the most restrictive of structure anchoring
- 0.4 is the highest security you can anchor a POS tower without empire standings it has most of the restrictions of high-sec structure anchoring and the risk of being engaged by capital ships
- 0.3 this is the line where restrictions limiting not only moon mining but the reactions of the moon goo
The first POS I managed was in Hulmate, it is a 0.4 system with 1 NPC station. Simply because the corp I was in at the time could not get the standings required 5.01 with an empire based on the raw standing of the active players. The risk was worth the reward, the limitations forced us to learn how to play smarter. Ultimately when I decided to take it down it had never lost a single defense structure it even got a kill mail, it had ran for months only reason it was unanchored was fuel costs.
The restrictions didn't hinder us (and likely many others) it was a learning experience greatly improving teamwork and tactics.
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
325
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 22:01:00 -
[2044] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Probably no devs reading in here anymore, but anyways: Corp offices are still requirement for POS after the patch? I know you dread your own code these days and this is probably an ancient relic with devilish powers that could annihilate all Iceland in one go, but with the coming changes this should be removed. Otherwise you pay ISK to the station owner/NPC sink for the office + ISK to the NPC sink for production/Invention/research if you want to use a tower and actually do what you want us to do: use your dreaded and fearmongering mechanics. This added double punishment is unlikely to sit well with the community, and makes you appear in a not so pleasant light (not that this was the case with these changes, but hey... ) So: Remove the station office requirement for POS usage with the expansion.
You never needed an office in system to put up a POS. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
325
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 00:33:00 -
[2045] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:Darn -- I was seriously thanking you for reducing our outpost upgrade costs :V But yeah, that is a good idea. I checked the viability of Starbases copy lines versus Gallente Outposts, but completely forgot about Invention versus Caldari Outposts. Outposts have to have a small advantage next to the cost, which was a good point, even if unintentional Also people, listing use cases of which Starbase structures have too small cargoholds next to everyday practical use will help a lot in the balancing, so please keep that coming. EDIT: fixed invention time multiplier on Hyasodiaaarrwhatever mobile laboratory to 0.45 in the previous post.
Equipment Assembly Arrays will need at least 1m Cubic Meters of space to accommodate our moderate production. A lot more for serious operations. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
325
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 03:24:00 -
[2046] - Quote
Olari Vanderfall wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Please note we are not removing installation types however GÇô a station that could not handle manufacturing or research will not suddenly be capable of doing so.
Please tell me I am reading this wrong. If my corporation has thousands of BPOs locked down in station in a system with no research facilities we'll need to move to a system with stations that have research? No way am I putting expensive BPOs at risk by putting them in a POS. If that's true then you're going to have a mass exodus to systems with research facilities, severely limiting where any sort of research is going to occur. It will screw over inventors because they will all need to make their copies in a limited number of systems. There are also many other repercussions as manufacturing will begin to cluster around these research systems due to easy access to copies for invention. If you go this route please look at station densities and locations throughout the entire universe. Some regions have far more stations per system than others (ie Lonetrek and Nonni).
I'm very very sorry to hear that. As a fellow industrialist who himself suffered through hell of locking thousands of BPOs, I feel your pain. It doesn't seem like CCP are even willing to consider going back on this decision, which is to say the least unfortunate. |
Valterra Craven
214
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 05:29:00 -
[2047] - 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. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 09:18:00 -
[2048] - Quote
Apart and somewhat irrelevant to my standing argument about the proposed expansion's flaws. I pose a couple questions to CPP and my fellow players.
- Will there be a practical purpose for the Personal Hangar Array? Will jobs at a POS be able to started from that location using material in the individuals 'hangar' and product placed in the same?
- Would it not make more sense instead of removing the underpinnings (particularly the ones that work) in the POS model to just scrap it and migrate to something similar to what is seen in various NPC missions under the Mobile/Deployable model frame work?
- Exactly how much of this expansion's changes are truly an improvement under intense inspection of the whole and isolated parts?
I am particularly interested in the first and last question.
From the beginning when the Dev-Blogs where released I had already resigned myself to the futile pursuit addressing issues doubting even if I could convince others of the validity of my points, effect something more than a trifling change. So let us see, answers to these questions three. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 14:52:00 -
[2049] - Quote
Fozzie just mentioned a goal to have us build named modules as well
Why can't we build stations??
We build player owned outpost eggs, but we BUY all upgrades and pedestals from NPC stations
That should be nothing more than adding a some BPO's CCP Greyscale -Yup, we have data on what happens currently, but we're expecting those use patterns to change substantially when this release. There's a degree of "suck it and see" happening here :)
|
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah Socius Inter Nos
398
|
Posted - 2014.05.02 02:15:00 -
[2050] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Fozzie just mentioned a goal to have us build named modules as well
Where did he say this? |
|
Shinzhi Xadi
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
91
|
Posted - 2014.05.02 03:46:00 -
[2051] - Quote
Quintessen wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Fozzie just mentioned a goal to have us build named modules as well Where did he say this?
It was today on the fanfest stream. They were talking about ship changes, and he mentioned they want players to be able to make named meta items in the future. |
Shamus en Divalone
Dip Dip Potatoe Chip
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.02 07:10:00 -
[2052] - Quote
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Quintessen wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Fozzie just mentioned a goal to have us build named modules as well Where did he say this? It was today on the fanfest stream. They were talking about ship changes, and he mentioned they want players to be able to make named meta items in the future.
I believe they should be looted BPC's or BPC's reverse engineered from a meta 4 loot drop, that would be cool.
Is there going to be some restriction on the amounts of war decs corps can have now seeing as all POS's in high became war dec magnets following this expansion?
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.02 10:23:00 -
[2053] - Quote
Shamus en Divalone wrote:...
I believe they should be looted BPC's or BPC's reverse engineered from a meta 4 loot drop, that would be cool.
Is there going to be some restriction on the amounts of war decs corps can have now seeing as all POS's in high became war dec magnets following this expansion?
I agree they should be drops or reverse engineered, with reverse engineering the preferred method that way people can get a taste of it before venturing into T3 aspect
As for war-dec limits, there have been even stronger arguments for a change in the past. The possibility of them changing it over POS related aggression is probably zero. It could also be argued the increase of war against space assets is the idea, for the removal of anchoring restrictions (which I think due to various reasons is bad)
The risk of blueprint loss due to an attack in high-sec is rather low even with forcing them to be at the POS(another point I've argued against and view as a bad idea) So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
148
|
Posted - 2014.05.04 10:49:00 -
[2054] - Quote
The suggestion that POS could be destroyed legally without wardec if starbase charters had not been paid for was popular at Fanfest yesterday. |
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.04 14:53:00 -
[2055] - Quote
Never tried so I don't know : can we start a job in an assembly array with material in a corp hangar array or a personnal hangar array ? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3165
|
Posted - 2014.05.04 16:10:00 -
[2056] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:The suggestion that POS could be destroyed legally without wardec if starbase charters had not been paid for was popular at Fanfest yesterday.
I thought people might like it
Granted, it's really easy to stick years in a pos.
But that could be mitigated by increasing the burn rate of charters, if you're not otherwise fueled. Or having yet another bay for them.
A launched POS wouldn't be immediately vulnerable (unless you anchor it /just/ before the fuel tick) giving you time to get it fueled and charters in.
Of course, this requires CCP to touch the scary pos code. which is scary. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2907
|
Posted - 2014.05.04 17:03:00 -
[2057] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:The suggestion that POS could be destroyed legally without wardec if starbase charters had not been paid for was popular at Fanfest yesterday. I thought people might like it Granted, it's really easy to stick years in a pos. But that could be mitigated by increasing the burn rate of charters, if you're not otherwise fueled. Or having yet another bay for them. A launched POS wouldn't be immediately vulnerable (unless you anchor it /just/ before the fuel tick) giving you time to get it fueled and charters in. Of course, this requires CCP to touch the scary pos code. which is scary.
I see you have one of your POS's up at one of my old moon locations. It was a great location. Do you plan on keeping your high sec POS's up, or are you conceding that any ambitions for viable high sec industry are now smashed? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Shamus en Divalone
Dip Dip Potatoe Chip
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.04 22:07:00 -
[2058] - Quote
Quote: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.
This is great, but, will it have more than 1 job slot? |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2907
|
Posted - 2014.05.04 23:08:00 -
[2059] - Quote
Shamus en Divalone wrote:Quote: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. This is great, but, will it have more than 1 job slot?
Job slots are a thing of the past....supposedly. However, there may be some arcane calculation imposed on POS's where if you "overload" an assembly array, you pay higher taxes, but CCP has said that industry at POS's will be dealt with "soon".
At the moment, no one has a real clue what the final cost structures are like, because CCP was in such a rush to get this mess out before Fanfest, there are huge holes in the whole thing. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3404
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:08:00 -
[2060] - Quote
Moved discussion to Starbase Structure changes to the Feature and Ideas discussion for clarity, please go there if you have comments on that particular field.
Thanks for your time. |
|
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3169
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:16:00 -
[2061] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:The suggestion that POS could be destroyed legally without wardec if starbase charters had not been paid for was popular at Fanfest yesterday. I thought people might like it Granted, it's really easy to stick years in a pos. But that could be mitigated by increasing the burn rate of charters, if you're not otherwise fueled. Or having yet another bay for them. A launched POS wouldn't be immediately vulnerable (unless you anchor it /just/ before the fuel tick) giving you time to get it fueled and charters in. Of course, this requires CCP to touch the scary pos code. which is scary. I see you have one of your POS's up at one of my old moon locations. It was a great location. Do you plan on keeping your high sec POS's up, or are you conceding that any ambitions for viable high sec industry are now smashed?
I'm planning on leaving my POS up (though I may transfer things and alts around to a different corp, depending on incoming wardecs from CSM status)
The numbers I'm seeing at the moment don't have me particularly concerned. (If I move the POS, it'll be to get it into a system with better build multiplier. I'd need more data to see what works.)
Note: Right now, all the numbers I have access are public. I've signed nothing yet. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Masayo Gowa
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 22:56:00 -
[2062] - Quote
i am not sure if this has been mentioned, but CCP Greyscale mentioned looking into changing the cap on capital construction part BPC's to more then 5 runs.
will this include other BPC's ? at the moment the cap on light tech 2 drones are 100, that results in somewhere aroun 16-17 hours per BPC
thats alot of micro managing if you want to build constantly. not to mention if you actualy have a job on the side and only able to restart builds once a day, the result is upwards of a 42% reduction in production capability per month :(
|
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 23:03:00 -
[2063] - Quote
Masayo Gowa wrote:i am not sure if this has been mentioned, but CCP Greyscale mentioned looking into changing the cap on capital construction part BPC's to more then 5 runs.
will this include other BPC's ? at the moment the cap on light tech 2 drones are 100, that results in somewhere aroun 16-17 hours per BPC
thats alot of micro managing if you want to build constantly. not to mention if you actualy have a job on the side and only able to restart builds once a day, the result is upwards of a 42% reduction in production capability per month :(
They have already said other things is a 2 way street. If you up the runs, then it takes longer to make the BPC which negatively impacts invention as they use max run BPC.
So....don't expect increased runs for anything that you can invent from CCP Greyscale -Yup, we have data on what happens currently, but we're expecting those use patterns to change substantially when this release. There's a degree of "suck it and see" happening here :)
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3171
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 23:10:00 -
[2064] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Masayo Gowa wrote:i am not sure if this has been mentioned, but CCP Greyscale mentioned looking into changing the cap on capital construction part BPC's to more then 5 runs.
will this include other BPC's ? at the moment the cap on light tech 2 drones are 100, that results in somewhere aroun 16-17 hours per BPC
thats alot of micro managing if you want to build constantly. not to mention if you actualy have a job on the side and only able to restart builds once a day, the result is upwards of a 42% reduction in production capability per month :(
They have already said other things is a 2 way street. If you up the runs, then it takes longer to make the BPC which negatively impacts invention as they use max run BPC. So....don't expect increased runs for anything that you can invent from
However, increased max runs on T2 things, increases the output from invention, driving down invention costs. Which can be a pretty major change. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 00:51:00 -
[2065] - Quote
To be honest im rather surprised that none has mentioned that the graph at the beginning of this blog is inherently Flawed and expecting that people will use ME and PE research every day is a really really stupid expectation. Will this change after the patch? I expect that it will occur even less then it does now.
ME / PE : time to research is generally measured in hours and days. capital bpos generally take a month or more to research. I know im not interacting with my ME researching thanatos bpo every day. I mean its in research, one level of ME takes more then a month. Once my bpos are at a ME that i want, why am i continuing to research them? how exactly am i supposed to be interacting with it every day?
Reverse engineering : the small number of items to reverse engineer and the large number of skills needed for this makes it unlikely that im going to be doing this every day, but rather in cyclical batches when the resulting bpc are needed to be manufactured are used up and i need more. i guess i could be overproducing but sometimes subs and hulls just arent in demand and my stock is at a level im comfortable with holding.
Copying. since copy time is so long for many items (specially the ones requiring max runs) i put these in for the most copys i can get at a time, I know im gonna need them later. This is the bottleneck that all research POS are set up to get around.
what interaction am i supposed to be doing with these things?
Manufacture : this happens anytime i get an order that is over my current stock or to maintain my stock levels, occurs every day, and why wouldn't it?
Invention : for small items the invention time is tiny, ammos can be cycled every hour and a half, so i can start this any time im on and not worry about it.
blog wrote: While we have been adding more professions over the years, the core idea of building stuff remains one of the most popular activities available in our game. You can see below that more than 50,000 characters use manufacturing and invention on a daily basis. Other industry activities, like research ME, PE, copying and reverse engineering only are a fraction of that number. That is the main reason why, for EVE's summer release, we are going to focus our efforts on industry as a whole.
The foundation of the entire reason you are doing industry changes is wrong. nor do many of the changes change how this will play out.
You are not introducing more reverse engineered items (this patch) You are not Shortening ME to the point where it can be interacted with every day You are not shortening PE to the point where it can be interacted with every day You are not increasing copying speed to the point where it would be interacted with every day You are not changing the length of research job scheduling. You are not balancing the number of research / services in stations across empire space
You are lengthening the time it takes for many BPO to be researched. You are making it more of a hassle to make POS copys You are changing all the maths that were understood by the community You are adding complicated cost scaling with multiple variables
I dont understand how you expect any of the proposed changes to affect the next years graph of those same activities Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2919
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 00:59:00 -
[2066] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Masayo Gowa wrote:i am not sure if this has been mentioned, but CCP Greyscale mentioned looking into changing the cap on capital construction part BPC's to more then 5 runs.
will this include other BPC's ? at the moment the cap on light tech 2 drones are 100, that results in somewhere aroun 16-17 hours per BPC
thats alot of micro managing if you want to build constantly. not to mention if you actualy have a job on the side and only able to restart builds once a day, the result is upwards of a 42% reduction in production capability per month :(
They have already said other things is a 2 way street. If you up the runs, then it takes longer to make the BPC which negatively impacts invention as they use max run BPC. So....don't expect increased runs for anything that you can invent from However, increased max runs on T2 things, increases the output from invention, driving down invention costs. Which can be a pretty major change.
In a nutshell, this mess is 4 weeks from release, and there are huge questions to be filled, and I think the first iteration is just hitting Sisi now . There is zero, I repeat zero chance, that some new construct with this many new levers and unanswered questions can be sorted out, and more importantly "balanced", in 4 weeks. When I use the word "balanced", I mean in the context of not creating some game breaking exploitable hole like the goons demonstrated with the FW debacle, and also from the context of not just flat out breaking the economy.
I am sure that the goons will be giving tons of input from ceaseless testing on Sisi, which oddly, may be the saving grace. Otherwise, we may end up with runaway inflation.
Just think about this from a very simple perspective. The auction cycle is at least 28 days, since there is a bidding process. Even if CCP did not blow up Sisi after every new build is implemented, a single cycle would not finish before June 3. And who has a clue how the taxing due to congestion will cycle up or down, since once again, there is essentially no large scale testing possible with a stable build.
The whole idea to dump a complete overhaul of industry and hope it all works in 4 weeks in flat out insane. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Alruan Shadowborn
InterSun Freelance Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 02:44:00 -
[2067] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I have an idea about "placeholder" POSes. Change the rule to:
A moon may have any number of POSes anchored. But only one can be on-line at any time.
Now if I anchor a POS but do not fuel it, anyone else can still put up theirs and turn it on, making mine useless. If I forget to fuel my POS someone else can take advantage and turn on theirs, and I'm out of luck.
Okay, n00b when it comes to POS mechanics, if a POS is offline in HighSec, can it be destroyed outside of a wardec?
I am assuming not.
If not, then this needs to change, it will force people to fuel their POS or not have one. They can put up a placeholder, but it will still cost them to run.
Plus if they don't then you can have their stuff ( if you find it ) |
Babbet Bunny
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 02:51:00 -
[2068] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:[quote=Steve Ronuken]
In a nutshell, this mess is 4 weeks from release, and there are huge questions to be filled, and I think the first iteration is just hitting Sisi now . There is zero, I repeat zero chance, that some new construct with this many new levers and unanswered questions can be sorted out, and more importantly "balanced", in 4 weeks. When I use the word "balanced", I mean in the context of not creating some game breaking exploitable hole like the goons demonstrated with the FW debacle, and also from the context of not just flat out breaking the economy.
Hmmm.... four weeks...28 days.
Say you have 5 systems in deep null stop production and research now. In 28 days it should register the lowest global usage and be assigned the minimal cost factor. Week 1 in system 1 out bid everyone on a 10% ME reduction team. Install 7 days worth of production. Week 2 repeat in system 2 Week 3 system 3 Week 4 system 4 Week 5 system 5 Week 6 system has reset to minimal global effect repeat cycle.
Heck package everything in about three freighters or carriers and just transfer all towers and assembly arrays system to system like a super nomad.
Or just follow the best teams around high sec as they have more effect on production cost than global usage especially if you front load the manufacturing.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
750
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 07:34:00 -
[2069] - Quote
The Original Blog wrote: After summer, R.A.M. and R.db will instead behave like any other material in the game. However, to keep loss ratios similar we will:
- Multiply number of R.AM. and R.Db. given for each run of their respective blueprint by 100.
- Multiply all R.A.M. and R.Db. job requirements by 100, then further multiply that number by the old damage per run percentage.
So I've thought more about this change and dusted off some of my old industry spreadsheets.
You realize that this is a nerf to invention right? I realize that it is extremely slight, but it is there.
With the current implementation, the RAM tools are unaffected by ME which means theyre also unaffected by the adverse ME that comes with invention.
This means that you're increasing RAM tool costs for all invention; is this intended? |
Sigras
Conglomo
750
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 08:03:00 -
[2070] - Quote
I have two questions regarding how the 2% ME discount is calculated.
1. it is 2% and not 2 ME levels right? Just confirming because if not you've just condemned all invention to only ever be done in 0.0 amarr factory stations...
2. is the 2% calculated per job or per run?
I realize that in most cases #2 makes absolutely no difference, but think about manufacturing Small CCCs or even medium CCCs... a 2% discount per run is not going to help either of those products at all, but a 2% discount per job certainly could
TL;DR is the 2% discount calculated ROUNDUP(RequiredMaterial * 0.98) * NumberOfJobs or is it calculated ROUNDUP(RequiredMaterial * NumberOfJobs * 0.98)? |
|
|
|
|
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 |