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) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
4231
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
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! CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
3035
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
:D Summer is going to be an interesting time! CCP FoxFour // Game Designer // @regnerba
|
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1111
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
First :DDamn!
I started reading and I really like the whole "splitting in six", it helps give each change its spotlight while splitting discussions, and integration of what these change means, for the average player. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking.
Proposed change for ECM - Not chance based - not max target reduction based |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
558
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dat screenshot CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
3460
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
I approve of this product and service. Retiring CSM Chairman GÇó My picks for CSM9: http://treborofthecsm.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-to-vote.html |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
9659
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
It's happening! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Aelisha
Achura-Waschi Exchange Monyusaiya Industry Trade Group
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
How will this affect Outposts in null-sec? Will they retain slot cap or gain some other feature? CEO of the Achura-Waschi Exchange: An International trade corporation that adheres to State values. Intaki Reborn.
Independent Capsuleer. |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
We've been dying to talk about these changes and can't wait for your feedback. Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
516
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
Should have not read that article while hungry You can trust me, I have a monocole |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3275
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:48:00 -
[10] - Quote
Aelisha wrote:How will this affect Outposts in null-sec? Will they retain slot cap or gain some other feature?
We've plans for this, and this will be mentioned in the job cost scaling blog. |
|
|
Rainbow Dash
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
110
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
THE BEST DAY EVER |
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions Free 2 Play
212
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
make sure its not as much of a click orgie as it is atm.. i'd like to mark 10 bpc, and just install them with a hand full of clicks, rather than doing it for E V E R Y S I N G L E O N E with a thousand clicks 3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
270
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Question: Will existing stacks of R.A.M. and R.Db be multiplied by 100 to compensate for the changes?
MDD |
Ali Aras
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
688
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'm very, very happy that CCP has devoted so much time and effort to working on an area of the game widely regarded as one of the big hard problems; I furthermore appreciate all the opportunities we've had for feedback going into this. The new industry system looks great, and I'm excited for the additional devblogs. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3275
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:50:00 -
[15] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:Question: Will existing stacks of R.A.M. and R.Db be multiplied by 100 to compensate for the changes?
MDD
Yes indeed. |
|
Crasniya
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
510
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:51:00 -
[16] - Quote
Dat UI screen... |
Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
643
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dat firefly / alien reference.
I love the UI mockup CSM9 Candidate: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326853 Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/asayanami Twitter: https://twitter.com/Asayanami
|
Garth of Izar
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:52:00 -
[18] - Quote
how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
11690
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
I will be there.
|
|
Aelisha
Achura-Waschi Exchange Monyusaiya Industry Trade Group
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:54:00 -
[20] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Aelisha wrote:How will this affect Outposts in null-sec? Will they retain slot cap or gain some other feature? We've plans for this, and this will be mentioned in the job cost scaling blog.
Your rapid feedback is appreciated and I look forwards to it. As a small corporation/alliance working towards null-industry we are eager to be a part of this renovation of a long-ailing system.
Keep up the good work. CEO of the Achura-Waschi Exchange: An International trade corporation that adheres to State values. Intaki Reborn.
Independent Capsuleer. |
|
Aerieth
Ionshard Holdings
116
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:55:00 -
[21] - Quote
I am not seeing the market group icon screen shot and instead am only seeing a duplicate of the removal of Extra Materials screen shot?
Only me or issue? |
Ulrich Cadalene
The Red Circle Inc.
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
Will you still require a wardec to attack a POS? |
|
CCP Lebowski
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:55:00 -
[23] - Quote
This stuff is awesome, and I don't even industry! Great job folks! CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/ccp_lebowski |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3043
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
Interesting.
I'll put in more comments later, when I'm not at work, though I'll really need to see the other devblogs, before my comments can be particularly coherent. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Jai Centarium
Anqara Expeditions
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
Very, very, very interesting.
Things I wonder:
- That "Teams" tab on the screenshot is intriguing.
- The material changes are welcome. It'll cut down on a lot of confusion and hassle.
- Will the new scale for line changes make POS manufacturing competitive? I've always found it odd that high-sec POSes weren't better at manufacturing from a cost standpoint.
I'm a little teapot, short and stout. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3276
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
Garth of Izar wrote:how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK
Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now. |
|
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:58:00 -
[27] - Quote
Aerieth wrote:I am not seeing the market group icon screen shot and instead am only seeing a duplicate of the removal of Extra Materials screen shot?
Only me or issue?
Not just you, we are looking into this. Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1221
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
So "lockdown blueprints" now becomes almost entirely useless? We will also have to move those blueprints between multiple hangers when we're using the assembly items, and goodbye to things such as remote filtering and such?
*Scratches head* ... was this designed by someone in photoshop and outlook by any chance? Thus ignoring such trivial things as... ease of use.
I have no earthly idea why a BPO needs to be moved to a starbase in order to use it, when all of us indy types have deliberately trained skills to avoid having to do that, to manage them all centrally (like anyone in real life would do).
Fix things like batch creation. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
352
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:59:00 -
[29] - Quote
Will there be unavoidable manufacturing / research fees in 0.0 stations? Or are they going to get that for free like they get free repairs? |
Canine Fiend
Hidden Refuge
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:01:00 -
[30] - Quote
I feel like there will now be even more High Sec POSes due to the removal of the standings requirement. This will inevitably lead to more people setting up and abandoning towers. Will there be any consideration for how to remove these large high sec towers that have been abandoned? It can be pretty disheartening to go set up a new tower only to find out that most moons are occupied by abandoned towers that would take a massive BS fleet hours to take out.
|
|
Messiene
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:02:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Garth of Izar wrote:how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now.
This sounds almost as well thought through as ...
...World of Darkness. |
Pycon
White Raven Industries Brothers of Tangra
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:02:00 -
[32] - Quote
So capital and super bpo's give us some idea around how they will work? |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
352
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:02:00 -
[33] - Quote
Canine Fiend wrote:I feel like there will now be even more High Sec POSes due to the removal of the standings requirement. This will inevitably lead to more people setting up and abandoning towers. Will there be any consideration for how to remove these large high sec towers that have been abandoned? It can be pretty disheartening to go set up a new tower only to find out that most moons are occupied by abandoned towers that would take a massive BS fleet hours to take out.
Not just in high-sec, low-sec as well. It takes far too much effort to take down a large caldari tower compared to the minimal expenditure in putting it up. |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
675
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:03:00 -
[34] - Quote
Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Sarin Gaston
Alpha Strategy The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:03:00 -
[35] - Quote
"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements " Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth. |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
4231
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:04:00 -
[36] - Quote
Aerieth wrote:I am not seeing the market group icon screen shot and instead am only seeing a duplicate of the removal of Extra Materials screen shot?
Only me or issue? Thank you for the notification, this (and a typo) has been fixed now. CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6877
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:04:00 -
[37] - Quote
Sarin Gaston wrote:"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements " Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth. it was a waste of your time
the correct solution is an apology and axing that atrocious mechanic forever not "well sarin gaston had to do it once so we must have everyone suffer equally" Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:06:00 -
[38] - Quote
Sarin Gaston wrote:"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements " Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth. I bet you complained when they removed learning skills too |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
626
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:07:00 -
[39] - Quote
Aelisha wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Aelisha wrote:How will this affect Outposts in null-sec? Will they retain slot cap or gain some other feature? We've plans for this, and this will be mentioned in the job cost scaling blog. Your rapid feedback is appreciated and I look forwards to it. As a small corporation/alliance working towards null-industry we are eager to be a part of this renovation of a long-ailing system. Keep up the good work.
Not empty quoting.
Also, industrial expansion is a go!
Free Ripley Weaver! |
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:08:00 -
[40] - Quote
This seems nice.
So we can fnally do batch installation of blueprints???? Mashie Saldana Dominique Vasilkovsky
|
|
Xaniff
The Redneck Gun Club Grumpy Oldmen
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:08:00 -
[41] - Quote
1. Please say those new images in the blueprint Get Info aren't here to stay. I rather like the text-driven tabs.
2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
3. If there's no lockdown available for blueprints, that's going to seriously up the risk of hauling out stuff like capital component BPOs to the station that are pretty much required non-stop in ship production.
4. While you're redoing the arrays and research facilities, could you add in folders or some sort of container so we can better sort through whose stuff is whose instead of having to rely on a complicated shell game of corporate divisions? Edit: Though judging by that screenshot, it looks like that might have already been considered. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
284
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:11:00 -
[42] - Quote
One artifact from this change: where does this leave Amarr Outposts? Currently, their advantage, compared to other outpost types, is that they have the largest number of raw manufacturing slots available for use. Does the new system have plans for mutating that advantage somehow to gel with the new system?
Could I be asking for information that's coming in a later devblog? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6879
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:12:00 -
[43] - Quote
What happens to a BPO in research/build in a pos when this change goes live? Is it moved to the POS, or does it remain in the station? Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Sir HyperChrist
Persnickety Pilots
47
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:14:00 -
[44] - Quote
I see a lot of improvements, most are just graphical clarifications, which is always great.
But also my "extra hassle" alarm goes off: I now have to make copies of my battleship-and-up (T2) bpo's in a station, then move those to a pos, for added buildspeed, or set those bpc's to build directly in station. It's more clicks than I have to do now, building in a pos, with the bpo in station, directly.
Will standing with the corp owning an empire station lower the fees on manufacturing and research? Adding some optimisation mechanic there would add gameplay for otherwise passive industry alts. Maybe an idea....
Part of problems I saw come up after the reprocessing blog, about compressed ores becoming the new default material unit for transport, but those only being built in Rorquals in null-sec, are solved. Mining corps can now easily put up pos for compression, providing steady market supply of compressed ore in empire. Thankyou for that :)
Still, allowing industrial cores on Orca's would even be easier: Compress during the mining op, instead of afterwards.
I'm really curious bout what you're planning with "Teams" !
Keep up the good work, see you in 2 weeks
-SHC |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
4232
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:16:00 -
[45] - Quote
Please refrain from personal attacks, trolling and off topic posts - thank you. CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager |
|
Paul Otichoda
Mine Your 0wn Business Brothers of Tangra
228
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:17:00 -
[46] - Quote
So those 6 months grinding standings for a high sec POS has been wasted?
I must say this rather does remove much need to have high standings with a faction and not a corporation now |
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
716
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:18:00 -
[47] - Quote
Hmm always wondered what these blue blueprint things were... must of saved hundreds of the damn things from all the exploring...
Nulla Curas |
David Magnus
240
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:19:00 -
[48] - Quote
I sincerely hope that you have fully thought through the BPO changes.
Having to move BPOs around and not being able to leave them locked down, or lock them down in a POS is an open invitation to corp theft.
Removing the usefulness of this basic protection will only encourage people to make 1-man corps and discourage anyone from working together once they have any BPO of significant value. BPOs are one of the only assets that have lasting, significant, and appreciating value. You may think think that adjusting the risk/reward on these will spark more gameplay, but it will only encourage people to play solo. http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/fight-us-maybe http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6881
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:19:00 -
[49] - Quote
also, w/r/t this:
Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.
will you be looking at runs as well? for example, bpcs of capital ship components are hilariously useless as they're capped at 5 runs, so you need to reinstall every eight hours or so if you wanted to use them, a huge slowdown unless you can reinstall like clockwork Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
361
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:20:00 -
[50] - Quote
Good to see changes coming through from the forums I've been active in, certainly feels like the player base have been listened to on many things here. |
|
Magnus Cortex
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:20:00 -
[51] - Quote
[quote=Paul Otichoda]So those 6 months grinding standings for a high sec POS has been wasted?/quote]
Its not wasted, it let you have a highsec pos when they required standings...
|
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
151
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:21:00 -
[52] - Quote
Altrue wrote:First :DDamn!I started reading and I really like the whole "splitting in six", it helps give each change its spotlight while splitting discussions, and integration of what these change means, for the average player. Edit : 1- I don't like the icons on the show info of bill of materials. They are very 2003. The whole gratient background and stuff. Their shape in itself is also quite.. meh :D. You should make these icons in line visually with the little skillbook on the ship show info. 2 - The line " After summer, R.A.M. and R.db will instead behave like any other material in the game. However, to keep loss ratios similar l we will:" contains a typo. There is a "I we" that snuck inside the final devblog :p 3 - Kuddos for the removal of Extra Materials!!! 4 - Cost scaling system for industry jobs, hahaha so evil . Sounds awesome! (Also stealth isk sink) IMHO, limiting it to 14% of the base item is way too low as a hard cap, but thats my opinion. 5 - " The Blueprints in question can be researched remotely, by installing them at a station while using a Starbase Mobile Laboratory in the same solar system. With the removal of slots this use case is no longer that important, as we expect research slots to be widely more available." o_O I didn't know that! Seems broken, happy that it goes away. 6 - POSes in high-sec without standing requirements? Cool! But we still need a way to easily remove offline POSes !! 7 - And this last teaser of the new industry UI... Aaawww so sweeeeeeet!!
Answer to number 6, Wardec>Blap POS>WIN
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1260
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:22:00 -
[53] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:We've been dying to talk about these changes and can't wait for your feedback.
Moving away from a fixed npc pricing structure like this appears to be a good thing.
Actually on reflection, I see that it should drive players to re-distribute themselves and their possessions to less centralised locations. Ships could die, possessions could be lost, this is all good.
on an un-related note .... Can the same thing be done to trading in general with regard to sales taxes and broker fees ?
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
6336
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:23:00 -
[54] - Quote
Paul Otichoda wrote:So those 6 months grinding standings for a high sec POS has been wasted?
I must say this rather does remove much need to have high standings with a faction and not a corporation now Which is probably the entire point, since it was a ****** mechanic that just encouraged painful grinding, alt corp usage or manipulating the mechanics to work around the limitation. Mainly pain and workarounds instead of worthwhile gameplay. |
Yinmatook
Skilled Refugees Carthaginian Naval Supply Industries
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:26:00 -
[55] - Quote
The major problem with putting anything out into a POS is that there is NO way to see what is out there from the game client unless you are physically at it and can open the modules to look. Of course, you can fire up jEVEAssets and get that entire list from the API...
With these Industry changes and now the requirement to place your BPO/BPC out in the POS, I certainly hope that the game client will be able to see what you have out there (you know, like with the Corportation->Assets->Search interface). |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:26:00 -
[56] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote:We've been dying to talk about these changes and can't wait for your feedback. Moving away from a fixed npc pricing structure like this appears to be a good thing. Actually on reflection, I see that it should drive players to re-distribute themselves and their possessions to less centralised locations. Ships could die, possessions could be lost, this is all good. on an un-related note .... Can the same thing be done to trading in general with regard to sales taxes and broker fees ?
A couple of the follow up blogs should elaborate on this, but yes, the idea is that there is a more dynamic spread of players invested in Industry which should lead to a more interesting and dynamic landscape.
Sales tax and broker fees are a completely separate system, not something within scope of these changes though certainly an interesting idea. Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3445
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:27:00 -
[57] - Quote
Unless I misunderstand, it is misleading to state station manufacturing slots are being removed: they are becoming unlimited.
Does this apply to outposts as well as NPC stations?
I am curious how that works with POS assembly lines; do they remain slotted?
EDIT: I think I need to read the blog a few more times. |
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
151
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:29:00 -
[58] - Quote
David Magnus wrote:I sincerely hope that you have fully thought through the BPO changes.
Having to move BPOs around and not being able to leave them locked down, or lock them down in a POS is an open invitation to corp theft.
Removing the usefulness of this basic protection will only encourage people to make 1-man corps and discourage anyone from working together once they have any BPO of significant value. BPOs are one of the only assets that have lasting, significant, and appreciating value. You may think think that adjusting the risk/reward on these will spark more gameplay, but it will only encourage people to play solo.
If people want to play solo who is anyone to tell them how to play their game. And if people are going to store their T2 BPO's and Capital BPO's then they deserve their **** to get jacked. This is EVE!
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2718
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:30:00 -
[59] - Quote
About being able to anchor POSes anywhere in high sec: Does that mean the very high security systems will become available? For example, right now you cannot anchor a POS in a 1.0 system. Will that change? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Tetania
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:32:00 -
[60] - Quote
Ok. I'm intrigued and I'll wait patiently for the rest of the plan to be unveiled.
As someone who builds Titans I'd just like to get another voice behind considerations for POS building.
Reducing copy time would certainly be viable for Hull Building after a brief delay to get copies started after the first post patch build that will be fine.
Components tho. Assuming a 1man corp which is going to be a must without lockdown. You still need to keep either 30Bil of BPOs in a POS anc choose betwen gambling on a successful defense or destroying around 20Bil in minerals to retrieve the BPOs while the POS is being reinforced. Or drastically increase your hauling from Refine minerals in station and haul to POS in system. To Refine minerals in Station and haul through a stargate to an Amarr station and then haul components from station to POS to build the ship off a BPC.
I already use 8 freighters multiboxed and consider the existing movement excessive. This would be hundreds of trips.
Upping the copies on a component BPC to 45-50 would be start as long as copy time is <= build time.
Otherwise allowing mineral recovery when jobs are cancelled would be an option but it forces a very very high attention level on POSes and makes eve a literal job to avoid catastrophic loss of assets.
I know supercap builders are the 1% but please don't make the extreme edge cases of ****** mechanics worse for us. |
|
Squelch
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:32:00 -
[61] - Quote
Soz if this has already been mentioned, but where you say all mention the new R.A.M requirements (in your example, you'll need 60 R.A.M where you needed 1 before), that will effectivley de-value any current stocks of R.A.M by a huge amount (example, 60 times less valuable).
Will existing stocks be multiplied to compensate, or is this something that players with R.A.M stocks will just have to deal with? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
380
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:32:00 -
[62] - Quote
So, and how do we find out how high the current price for the installation of an industry job on a given station is? Hopefully not by moving around in a freighter full with the stuff required for the manufacturing and checking every desired station individually... then again, as I came to know CCP wants more interaction ... Oh god, what have I done. |
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:36:00 -
[63] - Quote
Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
My chief complaint:
I have about 25,000 blueprints and blueprint copies and more than a half-dozen POSes. The only reason I can deal with such a quagmire is because of stations and containers.
Currently, in order to produce a specific item, all I have to do is go to a certain station, open a certain container, and move some of its contents to the station floor.
Under this new system, judging by the way you phrase it ("like other materials"), I would need to do one of two things:
1. Let all my blueprints pile up in various POS arrays, and thus have to scroll through at least hundreds of items every time I start a job.
2. Store all my blueprints in nice organized containers as I do now, and thus every time I start a job be forced to go to every one of my POSes, individually open every single POS array I'm using, scroll to the right container, and remove a simple handful of blueprints each time.
#2 would be a lot more clicks, a lot of downtime as I warp between POSes, and in general a lot of annoyance. Even if the S&I interface is revamped to where I don't need to click the exact same 8 spots on my screen 10 times for every character I own, the amount of time wasted by clunky game mechanics would still increase significantly.
Long story short, when you work on your filtering mechanisms, please keep in mind that many of us manage more than a single POS and definitely more than just a handful of arrays, cycle through several dozen blueprint types rather than only producing Megathrons, and in general go to extremes that you, Developers, may not expect. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
870
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:36:00 -
[64] - Quote
WOW. This is awesome!! Button spam will finally be removed for industrialists! Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! << |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1260
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:38:00 -
[65] - Quote
Squelch wrote:Soz if this has already been mentioned, but where you mention the new R.A.M requirements (in your example, you'll need 60 R.A.M where you needed 1 before), that will effectivley de-value any current stocks of R.A.M by a huge amount (example, 60 times less valuable).
Will existing stocks be multiplied to compensate, or is this something that players with R.A.M stocks will just have to deal with?
Additionally, will existing sources of R.A.M items have their drop quantities increased?
but won't it make them more valuable by increasing demand ?
sorry if it's a basic question, but I don't really get involved in the industrial side of eve. except as a consumer of end products. |
Sweet Felicia
Coreli Drive Yards Corelum Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:39:00 -
[66] - Quote
Will this effect Insurance, which is not rather low on former low tier ships, like Dominix, Typhoon and Armageddon? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3446
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:39:00 -
[67] - Quote
What about BPO lockdown if we have to move them to POS? |
Herbinator d'Arcadie
Arkadian Knight
65
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:39:00 -
[68] - Quote
Good stuff happening EXCEPT for the h-sec nerf of Standings removal. POCOs ... miss. POS ... miss.
It's the wrong way to go. It only temporarily relieves Vet boredom. Then the game is left drier than before.
"Block" pigs. Refuse to fly with them.
|
Mr Karson
Fuctifino
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:40:00 -
[69] - Quote
I fully appreciate the fact that this is eve and that risk is omnipresent (or should be). I also believe that being able to research/copy BPO's while keeping them in a station is practically a no risk situation (aside from trusting the wrong person). But given the theme of "Risk vs. Reward" combined with the immense value, not just in isk but in time, of these BPO's, I really hope that the "reward" for researching in a POS is on a scale comparable to the value at risk. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3277
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:41:00 -
[70] - Quote
Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. |
|
|
H3llHound
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:42:00 -
[71] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Squelch wrote:Soz if this has already been mentioned, but where you mention the new R.A.M requirements (in your example, you'll need 60 R.A.M where you needed 1 before), that will effectivley de-value any current stocks of R.A.M by a huge amount (example, 60 times less valuable).
Will existing stocks be multiplied to compensate, or is this something that players with R.A.M stocks will just have to deal with?
Additionally, will existing sources of R.A.M items have their drop quantities increased? but won't it make them more valuable by increasing demand ? sorry if it's a basic question, but I don't really get involved in the industrial side of eve. except as a consumer of end products.
One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch. The RAM BPOs will output 100RAM instead of one like now with the same min requirements. Market orders will prolly be multiplied by 100 while the asking price per RAM is divided by 100.
I hope they decrease the RAM volume in a similar fashion. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:42:00 -
[72] - Quote
These changes make sense when industry is done as a hobby. When industry is done on an industrial scale, the proposed changes become a nightmare. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
353
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:43:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down.
What, that hasn't been on the table at all, before? |
Juliette Asanari
Saeder-Krupp Trading Division
57
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:43:00 -
[74] - Quote
Finally, I'll be able to research all the things without waiting a month or two. Why did I grind my Caldari Faction Standing to 8.0? (Yes, I know, taxes... but that wasn't the intent...) |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2013
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:44:00 -
[75] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention.
That's the current plan, yes.
Weaselior wrote:also, w/r/t this: Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. will you be looking at runs as well? for example, bpcs of capital ship components are hilariously useless as they're capped at 5 runs, so you need to reinstall every eight hours or so if you wanted to use them, a huge slowdown unless you can reinstall like clockwork
This is now on my to-fix list :) |
|
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
118
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:46:00 -
[76] - Quote
How about market tabs for researched BPO's? Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!https://twitter.com/EVE_MHarmlesss-á |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
870
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:48:00 -
[77] - Quote
This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets? Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! << |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
626
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:48:00 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Aliventi wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes. Weaselior wrote:also, w/r/t this: Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. will you be looking at runs as well? for example, bpcs of capital ship components are hilariously useless as they're capped at 5 runs, so you need to reinstall every eight hours or so if you wanted to use them, a huge slowdown unless you can reinstall like clockwork This is now on my to-fix list :)
I agree with Weaselior's concern, and am pleased to see it being addressed. Coming soon... |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1260
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:49:00 -
[79] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:Squelch wrote:Soz if this has already been mentioned, but where you mention the new R.A.M requirements (in your example, you'll need 60 R.A.M where you needed 1 before), that will effectivley de-value any current stocks of R.A.M by a huge amount (example, 60 times less valuable).
Will existing stocks be multiplied to compensate, or is this something that players with R.A.M stocks will just have to deal with?
Additionally, will existing sources of R.A.M items have their drop quantities increased? but won't it make them more valuable by increasing demand ? sorry if it's a basic question, but I don't really get involved in the industrial side of eve. except as a consumer of end products. One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch. The RAM BPOs will output 100RAM instead of one like now with the same min requirements. Market orders will prolly be multiplied by 100 while the asking price per RAM is divided by 100. I hope they decrease the RAM volume in a similar fashion.
aah, gotcha I guess I skimmed through that part of the blog a little too quickly
thanks for the explanation. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
560
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:49:00 -
[80] - Quote
Yinmatook wrote:With these Industry changes and now the requirement to place your BPO/BPC out in the POS, I certainly hope that the game client will be able to see what you have out there (you know, like with the Corportation->Assets->Search interface).
Yes the new blueprint browser will show you all blueprints in stations or assembly arrays etc. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
penifSMASH
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
356
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:49:00 -
[81] - Quote
How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs? |
Squelch
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:50:00 -
[82] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Squelch wrote:Soz if this has already been mentioned, but where you mention the new R.A.M requirements (in your example, you'll need 60 R.A.M where you needed 1 before), that will effectivley de-value any current stocks of R.A.M by a huge amount (example, 60 times less valuable).
Will existing stocks be multiplied to compensate, or is this something that players with R.A.M stocks will just have to deal with?
Additionally, will existing sources of R.A.M items have their drop quantities increased? but won't it make them more valuable by increasing demand ? sorry if it's a basic question, but I don't really get involved in the industrial side of eve. except as a consumer of end products.
Nope, Here is a simple example (not real numbers)
Currently to construct Frigate A, you need 1 unit of R.A.M as input material. 1 unit of R.A.M costs 600k Frigate A sells on the market anything higher than 600k to make a profit.
After the change, you now need 60 units of R.A.M as input materials to build the same frigate A. 2 things can happen now.
1) The Frigate sell price stays the same, which means the approxomate build price must be the same. Your 60 R.A.M units are worth 600k, totalling 10k each. The price of 1 R.A.M unit has dropped from 600k to 10k.
2) The price of R.A.M stays the same, and the sell price of Frigate A shoots upwards. Frigate A is built out of 60 R.A.M at 600k each, totalling 36million ISK. Frigate A must now be sold for more that 36mil to be profitable. Before it was 600k
|
David Magnus
244
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:50:00 -
[83] - Quote
Theng Hofses wrote:These changes make sense when industry is done as a hobby. When industry is done on an industrial scale, the proposed changes become a nightmare.
Theng is totally right. Having to constantly physically move thousands of blueprints around to your dozens of POSes will be a nightmare after this. And it's not even just moving an item from station to POS, but it's managing the items in all your individual POS arrays.
Not to mention the fact that you can't lockdown BPOs in POSes.
I'm not even a major industrialist and I have over a hundred BPOs and thousands of BPCs. This is adding so much additional and unnecessary work. http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/fight-us-maybe http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
354
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:50:00 -
[84] - Quote
Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
560
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:50:00 -
[85] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. My chief complaint: I have about 25,000 blueprints and blueprint copies and more than a half-dozen POSes. The only reason I can deal with such a quagmire is because of stations and containers. Currently, in order to produce a specific item, all I have to do is go to a certain station, open a certain container, and move some of its contents to the station floor. Under this new system, judging by the way you phrase it ("like other materials"), I would need to do one of two things: 1. Let all my blueprints pile up in various POS arrays, and thus have to scroll through at least hundreds of items every time I start a job. 2. Store all my blueprints in nice organized containers as I do now, and thus every time I start a job be forced to go to every one of my POSes, individually open every single POS array I'm using, scroll to the right container, and remove a simple handful of blueprints each time. #2 would be a lot more clicks, a lot of downtime as I warp between POSes, and in general a lot of annoyance. Even if the S&I interface is revamped to where I don't need to click the exact same 8 spots on my screen 10 times for every character I own, the amount of time wasted by clunky game mechanics would still increase significantly. Long story short, when you work on your filtering mechanisms, please keep in mind that many of us manage more than a single POS and definitely more than just a handful of arrays, cycle through several dozen blueprint types rather than only producing Megathrons, and in general go to extremes that you, Developers, may not expect.
You will be able to see all your blueprints in assembly arrays etc and remotely start jobs from containers, so that should cover your use case.
EDIT: There is also a nice search / filter interface, you will get some time on SiSi to give us feedback on how this works before we go live too. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:52:00 -
[86] - Quote
Also, what about the Labs/Hangars/Arrays; can we get the possibility to get the stuff out of them when the tower is reinforced? I am aware of that you wrote in your novel that people should be active and get the stuff out of the modules during the RF process ... but some people are not online 24/7 or hang around their POS all the time, which puts those who do more than industry in EVE and those who don't put their sleep back into the retirement age at a massive disadvantage.
Do you expect that people take down POS when they go to bed or move to another region to do exploration or mission running? |
Jai Centarium
Anqara Expeditions
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:52:00 -
[87] - Quote
I'm slightly concerned about the removal of standings requirements for high-sec POSes. POS spam is bad, and should be something reserved for high-end industrial corps, not every 1-month old character with Anchoring III and a ton of ISK from selling a PLEX.
Maybe change how those standings requirements are used?
Something like instead of charters as fuel, you're required to pay the soverign empire a certain amount of ISK every month for anchoring rights, or else their navy shows up and blows your POS to hell? That way a corp with mixed members can just pay the fee (opening up high-sec POSes to larger corps that may have diverse members, but consequently, better tax income), while a small, focused corp can still get in the door. I'm a little teapot, short and stout. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3278
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:53:00 -
[88] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets?
The new UI will show you the accurate price before you actually install the job. |
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
4575
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:53:00 -
[89] - Quote
Given that you want people to move to POS industry, ant chance you can just delete the 8 million different POS factory things and make a more sensible set of them? Give people efficient/fast and just a few sizes, but don't make us anchor 15 different stupid factories and move stuff between then?
Also, as was mentioned above, people *need* to be able to see into their POS inventories remotely, without having to use the API (especially because the assets API is, what, a 6 hour cache time?). The API also currently doesn't return ME/PE levels for BPOs/BPOs, so it isn't a real replacement anyway. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Squelch
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:54:00 -
[90] - Quote
H3llHound wrote: One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch.
Where did you see this? The only thing I see in the Devblog is:
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.
That doesn't mention existing stocks. |
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders
252
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:55:00 -
[91] - Quote
Overall, I like the changes except removing the faction standings requirement for anchoring POSes in highsec. I think the standing requirement should stay to cut down on the amount of POSes.
I do have a few questions:
-What will the impact be to systems with FW systems upgrade levels? There is now no point to some of the bonuses.
-Can you elaborate on the copy cost in NPC stations?
-Will GMs provide assistance unlocking BPOs? I currently have about 1000 BPOs locked down in a station with my POSes. That system won't be ideal for the new changes and I'm really dreading spending 20+ hours clicking to unlock those BPOs.
-Additionally, will there be changes to the BPO lock/unlock process? I foresee the need to copy a lot of BPOs going forward. This may require moving stations/systems if they become too crowded and the MASSIVE SOUL SUCKING CLICKFEST of locking/unlocking BPOs will prevent me from moving. QCATS is recruiting:-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3896299 |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
560
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:55:00 -
[92] - Quote
Squelch wrote:H3llHound wrote: One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch.
Where did you see this? The only thing I see in the Devblog is: 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.That doesn't mention existing stocks.
Confirming this means existing stock including in market orders, contracts etc CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
9659
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:55:00 -
[93] - Quote
penifSMASH wrote:How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs
Grarr Dexx wrote:Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0?
The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs.
Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to 0. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
H3llHound
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:56:00 -
[94] - Quote
Squelch wrote:H3llHound wrote: One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch.
Where did you see this? The only thing I see in the Devblog is: 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.That doesn't mention existing stocks.
CCP did the same when they changed the polymer stuff recently so I am only deducing from what they did do already to what they will do. |
Enteron Anabente
Provisional Provisions
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:57:00 -
[95] - Quote
I would encourage you to reconsider the copy times change on T2 BPOs. Making copy times shorter than build times on those BPOs is de facto making them even better money printers than (some of them, at least) already are--if a T2 BPO owner used to be able to manufacture 10 items per day, now he will be able to manufacture 12 per day at essentially the same unit cost (yes, I just made those numbers up). This pushes small-scale T2 producers who rely on invention out of business, since the supply from the cheaper T2 BPOs will be increasing.
TL;DR: making copying times shorter than production times for T2 BPOs will concentrate more wealth in the hands of already-wealthy people and hurt small-scale industrialists. Please don't do it. |
Bremir Sol
Solar Ventures Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:59:00 -
[96] - Quote
Please expose the [recent/latest] per-station job installation cost to external 3rd party tools, whether through CREST or some other way. Most industrialists use out-of-game tools to track manufacturing and profitability, and once the job cost becomes a significant component of production price, profitability calculations will be completely wrong without that datum.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20757
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:59:00 -
[97] - Quote
I WANT TO MARRY YOU AND HAVE YOUR CHILDREN! Yes, the operations will be painful but it will be worth it.
Aaaanyway.
A few immediate things to suggest that have be gnawing at me for years now: the new UI, could you please make it installation-centric rather than blueprint centric? I think this is by far the most annoying thing that creates repeat clicks in the current system, and by the look of your mockup, it'll actually still be there. It's nice that the image shows all the information in one go, but it doesn't look like it solves the actual workflow issue.
The problem is this: you want to manufacture 20 Eagles from 10 BPCs (because you're a bit daft), so you rclick the first BPC GåÆ manufacture GåÆ select location GåÆ accidentally double-click and get an error GåÆ accept the error GåÆ select a slot GåÆ select input/output (because the game doesn't always remember these) GåÆ accept GåÆ accept, rclick the second BPC GåÆ manufacture GåÆ select location GåÆ accidentally double-click and get an error GåÆ accept the error GåÆ select a slot GåÆ select input/output (because the game still doesn't always remember these) GåÆ accept GåÆ accept, rclick the third BPC GåÆ manufacture GåÆ select location GåÆ accidentally double-click and get an error GåÆ accept the error GåÆ select a slot GåÆ select input/output (aaargh) GåÆ accept GåÆ accept GǪ etc. Sever more to go, RSI here we come.
Since everything remains the same for every step, the only thing you should ever have to do is pick a BPC and accept. This means you should be able to pick a location once; pick input and output once; and preferably only click accept once per BP. Also, since you're getting rid of slots, a lot of that selecting should be completely unnecessary now.
Instead, the workflow should be something along the lines of: Select location GåÆ set input/output if you haven't already, and make the game remember this for the rest of its life so the next time, this step isn't even part of the process GåÆ get a list of applicable blueprints for this location GåÆ drag all 10 blueprints you want to work with onto the stack and see the material requirements count up as you add more GåÆ everything checks green? price acceptable? click accept.
A second thing I wonder about is how this will affect POSes? Yes, GÇ£we'll soon have the numbersGÇ¥ but I wonder about the cost part of the equation. Since slot count is infinite and replaced by increasing costs, what happens if there is no cost to begin with? Will POS owners now have to pay CONCORD tax to use their own assembly arrays? And with infinite production lines, do you have any plans on adjusting the cargo space so you can actually make use of that production capacity without constantly brushing up against space limitations?
Again, I understand that we'll get the numbers later GÇö I'm just wondering if it is being adjusted. In the same vein, will you make assembly arrays more universal? One of the most annoying things right now is that, regardless of skills, you simply can't remote manufacture properly in a POS GÇö you have to build some components in one place, some on another, and the final product in a third, and you have to be at the POS to move the bits around to the right spot. Again, I suspect that you don't want to dive into the POS code right now, but this more than anything is what keeps complex manufacturing out of POSes and what keeps stations and outposts as the only sane option, with their infinite shared space. If all arrays could at least make use of the same storage space (it doesn't even have to be infinite, just suitably large), be it a corp hangar or some new structure, and use that space as their shared input/output, it would become bearable again. 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. |
penifSMASH
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
356
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:59:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:penifSMASH wrote:How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs Grarr Dexx wrote:Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0? The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs. Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs.
Where does this mysterious cost go to? Currently, market taxes, clone costs, industry costs and any fees that are station related go to the corp that owns the conquerable. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
284
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:01:00 -
[99] - Quote
I would, instead, consider the removal of T2 BPOs. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Virtutis Sahasranama
Interstellar Hollistic Agency Brothers of Tangra
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:01:00 -
[100] - Quote
I have a feeling that the answers to this might be a wait if that indication about the costs blog earlier is correct, but right now almost all outpost upgrade paths are related to increasing slots in the outpost. These changes look as though they are going to throw that out the window. Given the reprocessing changes as well and changes to station base refining, does that mean we will get an outpost blog at some point clarifying all the changes to upgrades and outpost changes?
|
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1470
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:02:00 -
[101] - Quote
Making your game work logically and less over complicated is good. Well done!
I can't wait for the information blog because that hole process is bs. Mass producing using single run copy is a pain as you can only set one job at a time. I hoping that someday soon i will finally be able to select all 10 bpc and run 10 invention jobs at once. +1 |
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:02:00 -
[102] - Quote
Are there any plans to provide some other reason to have faction standings? Selling POS corps was a small but reasonable income stream for anyone who took the time and effort to grind out faction standings. I'm not exactly sad to see that mechanic go, but it does mean faction standings are now essentially useless. Other than those few (not at all worth the effort) one-time BPC agents at the extreme upper end, it seems like faction standings are nothing more than an RP thing now. |
Morphisat
Millard Innovation Inc The 20 Minuters
52
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:03:00 -
[103] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Garth of Izar wrote:how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now.
Well this doesn't look like a good idea. People do manufacture other stuff besides Ammo and Hammerheads II. Even still, when those get stolen you need to reresearch them, etc etc. Even (researched) battleship and BC bpos are rather pricey, you can really expect people to just keep them at a POS. I guess you can copy them and use the copies. But still ... |
H3llHound
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:03:00 -
[104] - Quote
Devs, have you considered that reducing the copy time on T2 BPOs can lead to a big value decrease to invention?
Right now Invention has the plus of making huge volumes to make good profits by using ten lines. Lets say T2 Ammo: WIth one T2 BPO i can only run one assembly line but have the bonus of decreased time per cycle and reduced materials. With Invention I need more time, use more materials but can run 10 assembly lines at the same time.
Now with enough time a T2 BPO owner could come to a point where he also has 10 assembly lines running with his T2 BPCs from his researched T2 BPO, thus having a huge adventage over those who run invention. |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy The Unthinkables
133
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:03:00 -
[105] - Quote
Jai Centarium wrote:I'm slightly concerned about the removal of standings requirements for high-sec POSes. POS spam is bad, and should be something reserved for high-end industrial corps, not every 1-month old character with Anchoring III and a ton of ISK from selling a PLEX.
Maybe change how those standings requirements are used?
Something like instead of charters as fuel, you're required to pay the soverign empire a certain amount of ISK every month for anchoring rights, or else their navy shows up and blows your POS to hell? That way a corp with mixed members can just pay the fee (opening up high-sec POSes to larger corps that may have diverse members, but consequently, better tax income), while a small, focused corp can still get in the door. Starbase charter consumption should depend on standing. |
Valterra Craven
170
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:03:00 -
[106] - Quote
A dev blog on industry and still no nuking of t2 bpos to make actual t2 production competitive = a fail dev blog |
Nemo Sokarad
Tribal Mist Mildly Sober
16
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:04:00 -
[107] - Quote
Does this mean that it will be possible to ME research POS and POS module BPOs now or will their materials still be listed under Extra Materials? |
Morphisat
Millard Innovation Inc The 20 Minuters
52
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:05:00 -
[108] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:A dev blog on industry and still no nuking of t2 bpos to make actual t2 production competitive = a fail dev blog
Well I guess CCP can't please everybody ;). |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:06:00 -
[109] - Quote
And another question: When can we expect the replacement of the POS code with something more ... modern ... more intuitive ... less soul crushing? Hopefully before the next decade is half over? |
Aareya
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
16
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:06:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:penifSMASH wrote:How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs Grarr Dexx wrote:Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0? The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs. The industry outpost upgrades to null sec outposts (particularly, the Amarr ones) primarily focus on the increase of industry slots. With the removal of slot limitation, will you be altering the bonuses involved with these outpost upgrades? |
|
Blastcaps Madullier
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
115
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:06:00 -
[111] - Quote
"Any industry feature must be balanced around our risk versus reward philosophy"
Does this mean your finaly going to nerf moon mining to rebalance RISK vs reward? :) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
9663
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:06:00 -
[112] - Quote
penifSMASH wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:penifSMASH wrote:How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs Grarr Dexx wrote:Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0? The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs. Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs. Where does this mysterious cost go to? Currently, market taxes, clone costs, industry costs and any fees that are station related go to the corp that owns the conquerable.
The taxes go to the corp that owns the station, the scaling costs (more info will be coming in a future blog) are sunk out of the game. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
9663
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:07:00 -
[113] - Quote
Aareya wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:penifSMASH wrote:How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs Grarr Dexx wrote:Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0? The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs. The industry outpost upgrades to null sec outposts (particularly, the Amarr ones) primarily focus on the increase of industry slots. With the removal of slot limitation, will you be altering the bonuses involved with these outpost upgrades? Yes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6885
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:09:00 -
[114] - Quote
basically my concern with the changeover is this: currently, any number of titan bpos are sitting safely in a station, building in a pos or copying in a pos with the expectation they're safe
come changeover day, either these get grandfathered and the bpo is delivered back into the station upon completion/pos death, or it's delivered into the pos.
we need to know now, because there's only a short period of time to adjust planned builds before you're locked in (unless you care to self-abort a titan) assuming this patch comes out in june or so. I assume this will be a coding mess either way, but it's sort of key to know now how it will be handled. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
65
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:09:00 -
[115] - Quote
Are you going to reimburse the skill points wasted on the scientific networking skill? Literally the only reason anyone trained it was to train it to 1 to copy and manufacture in a POS in the same system. |
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:11:00 -
[116] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:About being able to anchor POSes anywhere in high sec: Does that mean the very high security systems will become available? For example, right now you cannot anchor a POS in a 1.0 system. Will that change?
Can someone answer this one please? Will we be able to set up towers in 0.8+ sec? |
penifSMASH
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
357
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:11:00 -
[117] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Are you going to reimburse the skill points wasted on the scientific networking skill? Literally the only reason anyone trained it was to train it to 1 to copy and manufacture in a POS in the same system.
CCP please reimburse me five-hundred (500) skill points. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:11:00 -
[118] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Are you going to reimburse the skill points wasted on the scientific networking skill? Literally the only reason anyone trained it was to train it to 1 to copy and manufacture in a POS in the same system. You want reimbursement for a skill you only trained to level one? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6885
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:11:00 -
[119] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:"Any industry feature must be balanced around our risk versus reward philosophy"
Does this mean your finaly going to nerf moon mining to rebalance RISK vs reward? :) as your alliance just found out by getting its moons curbstomped holding moons ain't risk free Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
66
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:11:00 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The taxes go to the corp that owns the station, the scaling costs (more info will be coming in a future blog) are sunk out of the game.
I approve. It never made sense to me that an outpost could provide infinite free repairs and other services without any sort of operational cost. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20757
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:12:00 -
[121] - Quote
Oh, and one more thing: I might have missed it but will the GÇ£congestion chargesGÇ¥ count up per activity or in total? In other words, will my manufacturing be more expensive because I'm in a system that sees a lot of ME research? 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. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
356
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:12:00 -
[122] - Quote
penifSMASH wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:penifSMASH wrote:How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs Grarr Dexx wrote:Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0? The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs. Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs. Where does this mysterious cost go to? Currently, market taxes, clone costs, industry costs and any fees that are station related go to the corp that owns the conquerable.
An offering to the god of balance. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
311
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:13:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:Question: Will existing stacks of R.A.M. and R.Db be multiplied by 100 to compensate for the changes?
MDD Yes indeed. Will their volume be divided by 100? They are already quite bulky. -- |
Slappy Andven
A.C.M.E. Construction Inc. Criminal Minds
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:14:00 -
[124] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down.
I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this?
---á Slappy Andven CEO Proletariat Projects, Inc. Executor, SoulWing Alliance |
Quazal Atreides
StarTrucks
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:14:00 -
[125] - Quote
how are RAMs going to work?
In your example you said 60 rams for 1 invuln field BPC - that is 240m3 of space per BPC
You woudl need a freighter load of RAMS just for a batch of t2 ship production?
Also,
How / or will standings have an impact on the build / research cost in stations, so tied into the same mechanics as sales tax you can reduce tax by skills? or, is the base cost a flat rate and cannot be reduced.! If this it he case then the hoursand hours people spend doing mission for nothing but standings would be pointless Still the only person to offer corp creation free of charge. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=35634#post35634 Created over 200 was 3rd on the all time corporation job history on eve-board. This service is in stasis due to personal game time... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
9664
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:15:00 -
[126] - Quote
Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this?
We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
762
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:16:00 -
[127] - Quote
Im really impressed with this, verry cool changes.
the things being addressed here are pretty much why i don't build anything in eve.
"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)"
mwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf In Doubt....Do....Excessively. Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼
|
Nimminnas Vibeke
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:18:00 -
[128] - Quote
In short say good bye:
- Research service corp/alliances - Premade corp with high standings buisness - High value BPO copy buisness
Say hello:
- Unlimited slots posibility
Next are be office? Am i missed something?
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:18:00 -
[129] - Quote
Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this?
Not really.
These changes are about tilting the game in the direction it's supposed to be tilted -- you must endure risk for reward. A significant portion of the changes in Rubicon and in the new expansion are in the removal of low-to-no risk activities such as reprocessing, research, and manufacturing.
That being said, if you do wish to eliminate risk, you can still utilize station-based RAM lines. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Callic Veratar
597
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:18:00 -
[130] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station.
It's almost like this is adding risk if players want free researching... |
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
357
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:19:00 -
[131] - Quote
While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:19:00 -
[132] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this? We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station.
But they are in the POS... for research ... and production ... and invention ... |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2721
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:19:00 -
[133] - Quote
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. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:20:00 -
[134] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:You will be able to see all your blueprints in assembly arrays etc and remotely start jobs from containers, so that should cover your use case.
EDIT: There is also a nice search / filter interface, you will get some time on SiSi to give us feedback on how this works before we go live too.
Thanks for the quick response. Remotely starting jobs from containers would deal with most of that problem; that mechanic is not currently available was all. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1335
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:20:00 -
[135] - Quote
sweet baby jesus GRRR Goons |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1260
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:20:00 -
[136] - Quote
Calorn Marthor wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:About being able to anchor POSes anywhere in high sec: Does that mean the very high security systems will become available? For example, right now you cannot anchor a POS in a 1.0 system. Will that change? Can someone answer this one please? Will we be able to set up towers in 0.8+ sec?
if I read the blog correctly
only the systems listed on the rookie systems page will be out of bounds (and places like Jita .. Jita was mentioned specifically too.) |
Dominus Alterai
Explorer Corps Disavowed.
84
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:21:00 -
[137] - Quote
So, a few questions for clarification:
If there are no longer slot limitations, what is the point of the Hyasyoda lab? If slots are no longer limited and cost more ISK instead, will slots in a mobile lab also cost ISK (if so, who will be paid)? When will we FINALLY be able to rent out slots in our towers to random people (a "feature" that hasn't been available since the introduction of POS structures)? Illigitimate son of Korako "The Rabbit" Kosakami.
Ship miner/corpse collector extrordinaire. |
Callic Veratar
597
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:22:00 -
[138] - 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.
Decent idea. I also like the possibility of allowing it to be hacked and unanchored if left unpowered for a month or more. The two together would make POS ownership slow, but competitive. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:22:00 -
[139] - Quote
I'm not even really sure what all you folks are upset about WRT the removal of lockdown BPO research and manufacturing. In highsec, you have to be wardecced before your POSes can come under attack. You get 24 hours notice to cancel jobs, pull up stakes, and flee to a new corporation. With the removal of standings requirements, it is trivial to cycle your corporation and keep your moon. If anything, it's becoming EASIER to mitigate this risk. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
67
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:22:00 -
[140] - Quote
Slappy Andven wrote:
I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this?
BPOs are suppose to be like PLEX or rare items, they are investments. Literally no one who is remotely intelligent is ever going to use a POS for copying after this change. The risk is too extreme. Sure, I keep around 1 - 2B in materials in my manufacturing POS, but my 10 - 15B worth of BPOs will never ever be taken to a POS. Why would I ever make such a risk? Unless you bring the copy time on Advanced Labs down to something obscene like .10 multiplier or give 10x the copy yield, then NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again. |
|
Nemo Sokarad
Tribal Mist Mildly Sober
16
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:23:00 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this? We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station.
The good thing about locking down your BPOs atm is that everyone in your corp can use them to produce in your POS, after the patch you would have to unlock a multi billion BPO, bring it to a pos and lock it again and hope that noone gains starbase operator and fueler roles (which you usually need to do anything relevant in a POS) and messes with the POS by offlineing it and then shooting the hangar or the laboratory.
|
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
2902
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:23:00 -
[142] - Quote
this is what i've been looking forwards to for a while, i'm very happy with this
@kitty bear, Calorn Marthor, Vincent Athena, the list of systems you can't do PI in might be a good indicator as to where you won't be able to erect a starbase? |
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
S T R A T C O M Critical-Mass
166
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:23:00 -
[143] - Quote
Are we going to see any changes to mining in lowsec and wormhole space anytime soon? |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
66
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:25:00 -
[144] - Quote
I would LOVE to see the office cap removed with this sort of pricing scale put in. Far too many factory stations in lowsec sit idle because nullsec entities have bought up all the offices to make midpoint cynos easier. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:25:00 -
[145] - Quote
In general I like the basic ideas being worked on. Providing flexible increasing costs for high sec is great. I am curious about the teams mentioned for the last blog, and wonder if that is a crucial piece to understanding how everything else will work. I can imagine a new game concept called teams which completely changes how all of these changes are viewed. For that reason I think the comments on these changes may have limited importance and usefulness. Still I want to mention some quick issues which may appear.
1) Abandoned POSes - We need some mechanism to remove abandoned POSes easier. 2) Tech 2 BPOS - Improving the stats (like copy speed) will make the more used putting additional pressure on all of the inventors working on similar products. 3) Land rush for Higher Security locations 1.0...
|
Callic Veratar
597
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:25:00 -
[146] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again.
YOU won't. Others will. They will lose high ME/PE BPOs. |
Slappy Andven
A.C.M.E. Construction Inc. Criminal Minds
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:26:00 -
[147] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station.
This response is at best disingenuous. The vast majority of people locking down blueprints for use in a POS are in stations that don't have those slots. In short, this change screws the VAST majority of us without recourse.
---á Slappy Andven CEO Proletariat Projects, Inc. Executor, SoulWing Alliance |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
557
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:27:00 -
[148] - Quote
Calorn Marthor wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:About being able to anchor POSes anywhere in high sec: Does that mean the very high security systems will become available? For example, right now you cannot anchor a POS in a 1.0 system. Will that change? Can someone answer this one please? Will we be able to set up towers in 0.8+ sec?
You will be able to anchor towers in any system in hi sec, except systems that are restricted, like rookie systems and trade hubs like Jita. This is the same restricted list as the one that applies to POCOs for instance. |
|
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
2902
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:27:00 -
[149] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:this is what i've been looking forwards to for a while, i'm very happy with this
@kitty bear, Calorn Marthor, Vincent Athena, the list of systems you can't do PI in might be a good indicator as to where you won't be able to erect a starbase? was it planetary interaction or something else that had restricted systems :S
e: there we go |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
67
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:28:00 -
[150] - Quote
Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. This response is at best disingenuous. The vast majority of people locking down blueprints for use in a POS are in stations that don't have those slots. In short, this change screws the VAST majority of us without recourse.
Lucky for you, slots will soon be available at the nearest station that provides those services. And you won't even need standings to anchor a POS there! |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:28:00 -
[151] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote: BPOs are suppose to be like PLEX or rare items, they are investments. Literally no one who is remotely intelligent is ever going to use a POS for copying after this change. The risk is too extreme. Sure, I keep around 1 - 2B in materials in my manufacturing POS, but my 10 - 15B worth of BPOs will never ever be taken to a POS. Why would I ever make such a risk? Unless you bring the copy time on Advanced Labs down to something obscene like .10 multiplier or give 10x the copy yield, then NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again.
Holy risk aversion, Batman.
People with the stones to accept the risk will totally do it. This is how the game is changing, in most things -- accepting risk allows you to profit. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
22
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:28:00 -
[152] - Quote
removed
Thanks SoniClover! |
Callic Veratar
597
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:29:00 -
[153] - Quote
Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. This response is at best disingenuous. The vast majority of people locking down blueprints for use in a POS are in stations that don't have those slots. In short, this change screws the VAST majority of us without recourse.
Good thing this was announced well in advance so you can scout out new systems and stations to move your BPOs. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:29:00 -
[154] - Quote
penifSMASH wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Are you going to reimburse the skill points wasted on the scientific networking skill? Literally the only reason anyone trained it was to train it to 1 to copy and manufacture in a POS in the same system. CCP please reimburse me five-hundred (500) skill points.
Sure, this is a humorous thing, but the larger point is that there is an entire system in place for this. You are basically destroying a system that has been in place since invention was added to the game. You are forcing insane amounts of risk that can almost never be given a proper reward for without either destroying the eve economy, or over buffing POS copying. I do not think that the devs who proposed this change can come even close to understanding the ramifications for it. |
|
CCP RubberBAND
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
279
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:29:00 -
[155] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Oh, and one more thing: I might have missed it but will the Gǣcongestion chargesGǥ count up per activity or in total? And/or will it be split by the actual installation? In other words, will my manufacturing be more expensive because I'm in a station that sees a lot of ME research? Or will my ME research become more expensive because I'm using a lab array that already holds a bajillion invention jobs (but if I pick lab #2, I won't have to pay that tax)? Or is it rather the case in both examples that my manufacturing is only made more expensive by other manufacturing and my ME by other ME jobs, both of them happening in the exact same installation that I'm using? GǪor should I wait for the fifth blog before asking?
Should probably wait. To your previous post, the UI is going to reduce the number of clicks required to both install and preview/adjust a job to almost none. Our goal was driven by the idea that we want both batch and single blueprint job installation to be painless but fun. I don't want to spoil the next few blogs so I will leave it at that.
As to the cost scaling based on activity in a system, I will simply say that you should notice the impact on cost of working in a busy system, but the blog should go into all the detail you need. Feel free to poke me on: Twitter |
|
Slappy Andven
A.C.M.E. Construction Inc. Criminal Minds
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:29:00 -
[156] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. It's almost like this is adding risk if players want free researching...
Researching at a POS is not free. First, fuel costs went up by a huge factor with the fuel blocks, which someone has to pay for, and then this. Your post makes literally no sense at all.
---á Slappy Andven CEO Proletariat Projects, Inc. Executor, SoulWing Alliance |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:30:00 -
[157] - Quote
I'd like to echo a question Weaselior asked earlier.
During the patch downtime, say I have a job going in a CSAA from a locked down BPO in a station. This job finishes after patch.
Will the BPO deliver to the POS or the station? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Valterra Craven
171
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:31:00 -
[158] - Quote
Querns wrote:Allison A'vani wrote: BPOs are suppose to be like PLEX or rare items, they are investments. Literally no one who is remotely intelligent is ever going to use a POS for copying after this change. The risk is too extreme. Sure, I keep around 1 - 2B in materials in my manufacturing POS, but my 10 - 15B worth of BPOs will never ever be taken to a POS. Why would I ever make such a risk? Unless you bring the copy time on Advanced Labs down to something obscene like .10 multiplier or give 10x the copy yield, then NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again.
Holy risk aversion, Batman. People with the stones to accept the risk will totally do it. This is how the game is changing, in most things -- accepting risk allows you to profit.
Except that now the risk is very high while the reward is very low. Manufacturing was never a very rewarding gameplay feature. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
172
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:31:00 -
[159] - Quote
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).
A) Could you explain please what the philosophy / lore behind this is when no more faction standing requirements are needed ?
It seems reasonable for all those engineers out there, to see their hard work grinding faction standing to pick the fruits of that. This way it just copies losec, please consider faction standing to be involved when it concerns Starbase Charters requirements for hisec.
B) And the obvious question has to be asked ofc, will the industry changes be tied into CREST ? Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2016
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:32:00 -
[160] - Quote
Virtutis Sahasranama wrote:I have a feeling that the answers to this might be a wait if that indication about the costs blog earlier is correct, but right now almost all outpost upgrade paths are related to increasing slots in the outpost. These changes look as though they are going to throw that out the window. Given the reprocessing changes as well and changes to station base refining, does that mean we will get an outpost blog at some point clarifying all the changes to upgrades and outpost changes?
Yes :) |
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:32:00 -
[161] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Querns wrote:Allison A'vani wrote: BPOs are suppose to be like PLEX or rare items, they are investments. Literally no one who is remotely intelligent is ever going to use a POS for copying after this change. The risk is too extreme. Sure, I keep around 1 - 2B in materials in my manufacturing POS, but my 10 - 15B worth of BPOs will never ever be taken to a POS. Why would I ever make such a risk? Unless you bring the copy time on Advanced Labs down to something obscene like .10 multiplier or give 10x the copy yield, then NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again.
Holy risk aversion, Batman. People with the stones to accept the risk will totally do it. This is how the game is changing, in most things -- accepting risk allows you to profit. Except that now the risk is very high while the reward is very low. Manufacturing was never a very rewarding gameplay feature. No, actually, it's really not. You get wardecced, you cancel the job, you cycle the pos to a new corporation, you restart the job. I guess this makes the job interruptible, but not truly at risk. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:32:00 -
[162] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Are there any plans to provide some other reason to have faction standings? Selling POS corps was a small but reasonable income stream for anyone who took the time and effort to grind out faction standings. I'm not exactly sad to see that mechanic go, but it does mean faction standings are now essentially useless. Other than those few (not at all worth the effort) one-time BPC agents at the extreme upper end, it seems like faction standings are nothing more than an RP thing now.
It seems you're not aware of the wonderful world of PLEX 0.01isking. If you take the time to grind faction standings above 9, you can casually make somewhere around 0.5bil/hr during peak-times. Just let an IGB script run and stick Eve in a corner of your second monitor. |
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries Solar Assault Fleet
1057
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:32:00 -
[163] - Quote
This will be fun.
Thank you CCP (and possibly CSM).
The age of Aquarius is over, this is the age of Vulcan ;)
Vote for Fuzzy Steve! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322
|
Callic Veratar
597
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:32:00 -
[164] - Quote
Slappy Andven wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. It's almost like this is adding risk if players want free researching... Researching at a POS is not free. First, fuel costs went up by a huge factor with the fuel blocks, which someone has to pay for, and then this. Your post makes literally no sense at all.
So pull down your POS and substitute the fuel cost for the station fees. This isn't as hard as you're trying to make it. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:33:00 -
[165] - Quote
Querns wrote:Allison A'vani wrote: BPOs are suppose to be like PLEX or rare items, they are investments. Literally no one who is remotely intelligent is ever going to use a POS for copying after this change. The risk is too extreme. Sure, I keep around 1 - 2B in materials in my manufacturing POS, but my 10 - 15B worth of BPOs will never ever be taken to a POS. Why would I ever make such a risk? Unless you bring the copy time on Advanced Labs down to something obscene like .10 multiplier or give 10x the copy yield, then NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again.
Holy risk aversion, Batman. People with the stones to accept the risk will totally do it. This is how the game is changing, in most things -- accepting risk allows you to profit.
Risk aversion? No, I make all my money off poses in 0.0. It is not a matter of risk aversion, it is basically the fact that it only costs at most 1m isk for me to JF to a low sec system nearby and do all my copying there, and then JF the copies back to my 0.0 POS. The reward for the increased risk can not ever be met. That is my point. |
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
151
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:34:00 -
[166] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down.
Would the POS legacy code break if people were able to use a hacking mod on a POS that is out of fuel in order to unanchor it?
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6890
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:35:00 -
[167] - Quote
I really appreciate the pos standings change, but have you considered this makes it trivial to avoid wardecs even with a pos? Before, losing your standings if you had a pos was the only reason you wouldn't immediately remake your corp, now...not so much.
Will you be taking any steps to make wardec evasion harder through remaking the corporation? Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20757
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:37:00 -
[168] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:Should probably wait. To your previous post, the UI is going to reduce the number of clicks required to both install and preview/adjust a job to almost none. Our goal was driven by the idea that we want both batch and single blueprint job installation to be painless but fun. I don't want to spoil the next few blogs so I will leave it at that.
As to the cost scaling based on activity in a system, I will simply say that you should notice the impact on cost of working in a busy system, but the blog should go into all the detail you need. Sounds good. I'll try to hold back the questions for the relevant blogs then.
The UI bit is just something I've been sitting on for too long, and I think that's been one of the biggest sources of actual GǣgameplayGǥ headaches: the way it is designed is veryGǪ how should I sayGǪ programmer:ish. It looks like it's built right on top of the DB and item structure with no abstraction whatsoever. It's literally Gǣtake object A, feed into function B with parameters C and DGǥ.
If that could be transformed into, or adjusted to provide, the actual human workflow through a carefully selected abstraction layer that deals with the actual functionality setup, the pain would go away. And in truth, that workflow begins with the location GÇö the place where you have already gathered all your blueprints and materials GÇö rather than with the blueprints themselves.
The mockup looks like it's more focused on drag-and-drop than the usual EVE right-clicking-vaganza, though, and that would already a huge step forward. 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. |
Valterra Craven
171
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:37:00 -
[169] - Quote
Querns wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Querns wrote:Allison A'vani wrote: BPOs are suppose to be like PLEX or rare items, they are investments. Literally no one who is remotely intelligent is ever going to use a POS for copying after this change. The risk is too extreme. Sure, I keep around 1 - 2B in materials in my manufacturing POS, but my 10 - 15B worth of BPOs will never ever be taken to a POS. Why would I ever make such a risk? Unless you bring the copy time on Advanced Labs down to something obscene like .10 multiplier or give 10x the copy yield, then NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again.
Holy risk aversion, Batman. People with the stones to accept the risk will totally do it. This is how the game is changing, in most things -- accepting risk allows you to profit. Except that now the risk is very high while the reward is very low. Manufacturing was never a very rewarding gameplay feature. No, actually, it's really not. You get wardecced, you cancel the job, you cycle the pos to a new corporation, you restart the job. I guess this makes the job interruptible, but not truly at risk.
This is all well and good for research jobs were there is nothing of value at risk, but this changes things completely when you have manufacturing jobs and uninstalling them means you lose the minerals you installed for that job... |
Slappy Andven
A.C.M.E. Construction Inc. Criminal Minds
22
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:37:00 -
[170] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Sure, this is a humorous thing, but the larger point is that there is an entire system in place for this. You are basically destroying a system that has been in place since invention was added to the game. You are forcing insane amounts of risk that can almost never be given a proper reward for without either destroying the eve economy, or over buffing POS copying. I do not think that the devs who proposed this change can come even close to understanding the ramifications for it.
This.
This whole Dev Blog has convinced me that the Dev's have zero understanding of how industrialists work in this game. This will end up being like the bad nerfs to Incursions that had to be backed out because they rendered incursions unplayable. When you can't buy ships because we won't make them, you know who to come back and complain to.
Or, everything gets switched to station manufacturing, and the prices on everything goes through the roof as a result. Yay, inflation! Good job, Devs!
Is there a SINGLE Dev who spent significant time building things in this game, or are you just all from Goons and the like? I'm trying really hard to keep this positive, but it's a challenge. It's clear to me that the days of horribly bad decisions on the part of CCP are very far from over. You're out of side projects like WoD to kill to make up for bad decisions like this. What will you kill next?
---á Slappy Andven CEO A.C.M.E. Construction, Inc.
|
|
Makoto Priano
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
6178
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:37:00 -
[171] - Quote
I hate to be that guy, but: any content for shooting-at-people stuff, or any development along the explore-new-shenanigans and make-new-implants realm?
Priano Trans-Stellar: elegant solutions for the State's needs. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
388
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:39:00 -
[172] - Quote
Summer is coming (tm)
Also - while rethinking UI elements pls add link to blueprint to every intem somewhere in that item show info (so for example in raven's show info i can click on blueprint for raven to see its production info) Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6890
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:39:00 -
[173] - Quote
Slappy Andven wrote: This whole Dev Blog has convinced me that the Dev's have zero understanding of how industrialists work in this game. This will end up being like the bad nerfs to Incursions that had to be backed out because they rendered incursions unplayable. When you can't buy ships because we won't make them, you know who to come back and complain to.
Or, everything gets switched to station manufacturing, and the prices on everything goes through the roof as a result. Yay, inflation! Good job, Devs!
Is there a SINGLE Dev who spent significant time building things in this game, or are you just all from Goons and the like? I'm trying really hard to keep this positive, but it's a challenge. It's clear to me that the days of horribly bad decisions on the part of CCP are very far from over. You're out of side projects like WoD to kill to make up for bad decisions like this. What will you kill next?
if costs go up that means that industry becomes more profitable and people can make money by displacing you
sounds ok to me Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
287
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:39:00 -
[174] - Quote
On a related note:
The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS. Right now, if you want to move your POS to a new corporation upon wardec, it takes seven (7) days for standings to promulgate to the corporation's standings. This had the effect of severely limiting the amount of "POS cycling" that could occur. With the removal of standings from the equation, it is now a reasonable response, upon being wardecced, to create a new corporation, unanchor the POS under wardec, and sit on the moon in question in a cloaked industrial sitting in the new, unwardecced corporation, ready to anchor a new pos when the old one comes up.
I suggest that a new corporation be required to wait seven (7) days before being eligible to anchor a new pos. This brings the new era in line with the convoluted, yet functional system that exists today. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20757
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:40:00 -
[175] - Quote
Querns wrote:Allison A'vani wrote: BPOs are suppose to be like PLEX or rare items, they are investments. Literally no one who is remotely intelligent is ever going to use a POS for copying after this change. The risk is too extreme. Sure, I keep around 1 - 2B in materials in my manufacturing POS, but my 10 - 15B worth of BPOs will never ever be taken to a POS. Why would I ever make such a risk? Unless you bring the copy time on Advanced Labs down to something obscene like .10 multiplier or give 10x the copy yield, then NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again.
Holy risk aversion, Batman. People with the stones to accept the risk will totally do it. This is how the game is changing, in most things -- accepting risk allows you to profit. Tbh, I get the feeling that the main idea with these changes is that a lot of work should be done through BPCs rather than directly from the BPOs. So you still store up all your BPOs in a secure location as before, and then copy them for external use GÇö those copies become consumables that have to be carted around much like all the materials you already have to truck around if you want to use POSes for manufacturing.
Of course, this relies on copying being far more efficient than it currently is so that it at least matches production times 1:1. 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. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
566
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:40:00 -
[176] - Quote
Freelancer117 wrote:And the obvious question has to be asked ofc, will the industry changes be tied into CREST ?
We will at the very least be updating the static export with new blueprint data, and I'll try and get this out to devs before the release. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:40:00 -
[177] - Quote
Makoto Priano wrote:I hate to be that guy, but: any content for shooting-at-people stuff, or any development along the explore-new-shenanigans and make-new-implants realm?
There will be POS's everywhere and those POS's are now slightly more likely to contain BPO's. I'm pretty sure the shooting-at-people demographic is getting an indirect buff here ;) |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:41:00 -
[178] - Quote
Teams, Slots, and Industry
The idea of blogs about teams gave me a quick possible idea for the future changes. This is pure speculation based on hints in this dev blog. I don't have any special information. I am probably wrong about some of this.
Stations are given a number of teams instead of slots. They work on everything in the queue starting with the first job entered. When they complete a job the team moves to the next job. When the team is in high demand and is required to work for many days straight then they demand higher wages (increase costs). The teams can work on ME, PE, copying, or manufacturing based on the station's facilities (station either can research ME or not). POSes are designed similarly with speed increases for various jobs. |
Kaius Fero
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:42:00 -
[179] - Quote
I have not much to comment except this:
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).
Now.. tell me this was a typo! Are you guys serious about this?! I mean.. there are thousand of players whom spent like months grinding those stupid cosmos missions just to be able to drop a POS in hi sec and now your like.. "lol suckers!"
I'm not ragging because the change, I think it's a good thing because grinding those missions was/is a pain. But I'm pretty mad that I had to spend so many weeks .. for nothing. Same as skilling for refining, now every noob with a POS will be able to refine as good as I do .. wtf?!
I'm seriously concerned about how you guys start to change the game and lol about stuff that required a significant effort to get there. If this trend continues, I expect that soon we will be able to fly Titan's in Jita and it will require only 1 day to skill for it :/ I don't have any reason to skill up anymore, anytime you guys can change how the game works and just laugh about it... I'm already feeling like playing a themepark.
And regarding the risk vs reward.. yeah, I can see the risk, but where exactly is the reward? |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1261
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:42:00 -
[180] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:this is what i've been looking forwards to for a while, i'm very happy with this
@kitty bear, Calorn Marthor, Vincent Athena, the list of systems you can't do PI in might be a good indicator as to where you won't be able to erect a starbase? was it planetary interaction or something else that had restricted systems :S e: there we go
looks like it's going to be both lists then (I didn't even know there was a PI restriction list either)
that's still an awful lot of systems left to use though, so I don't see any real reason for people whinging about those restrictions |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6890
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:42:00 -
[181] - Quote
When you say "14% of cost" as the max slot fee, what does that mean for research jobs? That only makes sense for manufacturing. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5574
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:44:00 -
[182] - Quote
Chribba wrote:I will be there.
Removal of blueprints in stations suddenly became a major game changer!
/c Indeed, though not as much of a game changer (for most players) as the scaling cost to manufacture. Marketing hubs will likely no longer also be industrial hubs... and as industry spreads out so to may the market landscape.
Win WIN!!! 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. |
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:44:00 -
[183] - Quote
Querns wrote:The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS.
But the dev blog says "The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked". So clearly you must be wrong! ;) |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
132
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:44:00 -
[184] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:Question: Will existing stacks of R.A.M. and R.Db be multiplied by 100 to compensate for the changes?
MDD Yes indeed. i'm not sure if this has been answered yet, but will R.A.M. now be affected by the ME level of the BPO/BPC? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6890
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:45:00 -
[185] - Quote
oh yeah: with anyone able to put up a pos you actually need to code in refineries using skills or absolutely nobody in empire ever will use a station refinery Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3292
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:45:00 -
[186] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:When you say "14% of cost" as the max slot fee, what does that mean for research jobs? That only makes sense for manufacturing.
Research will have specific ways around that, which will be explained in the proper blog |
|
Death Ryder
Angels and Devils Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:46:00 -
[187] - Quote
my question to CCP Ytterbium is this....
ARE YOU A FREAKING IDIOT...
your little improvements will turn high sec into a war zone and bring production across eve to a standstill in no time what so ever as the greifer CCP so fondly coddle up to begin destroying pos's left right and center in a damn orgy of wankerness... |
Zakarumit CZ
Zakarum Industries Exiliar Syndicate
164
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:47:00 -
[188] - Quote
I would like to know if CCP plans to include faction/corporation standings of players/corporations into the formula for the price of new manufacturing jobs. Something like what works for the broker fees - better standings with station owner means lower prices. I think this would be very appropriate, as CCP now removes the need of standings to anchor POS. It would also more encourage players to at least try missions or grind some standings... (COSMOS anyone?)
|
Makoto Priano
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
6178
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:49:00 -
[189] - Quote
Actually, QUESTION!
So. If you're removing the standing requirement for anchoring POSes because it doesn't add gameplay value, will you also be removing the standing requirement for installing jumpclones?
That said, if you're removing standings requirements and standings now only really matter for taxes/agent access, will you be adding new standing-gated rewards to LP stores or something like that? Pretty please? Priano Trans-Stellar: elegant solutions for the State's needs. |
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight Initiative Associates
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:51:00 -
[190] - Quote
Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
This is the worst single idea I have ever seen from a dev. DO NOT DO THIS CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!
We already risk a large amount of isk in just having the labs/datacores/decryptors and all of the copies needed out at a pos. Forcing us to either risk a huge amount more than that, or move the bpos to other much more populated stations that are already overpopulated (that don't have corp offices available or available for anywhere near a reasonable price) and incur a high cost that will greatly reduce production profit or negate it all together, is a horrible change. You as devs do not understand the amount of bpos required to make copies for t2 invention. And you clearly don't understand the organization and the necessity of being able to efficiently access bpos and the time commitment that industry already takes. It is incredibly shortsighted and ignorant of you to assume that it is only a slight amount of isk that we will be risking. We use and need easy access to hundreds of bpos to make the copies we need to be able to do invention. Asking us to risk multiple billions in bpos is insane. And no, I know I don't have to keep all of the bpos I am not using at the pos. However, the addition of moving around the needed bpos from the station to the pos adds an additional step and organizational nightmare to an already complicated system. Because of the nature of industry NOTHING you do with the UI and other new features will change this.
This change will also create an additional hassle organizational nightmare for players who need to find or move bpos around. Industry is already complicated enough without having to deal with moving all of the bpos around. DO NOT take away our ability to organize bpos in one central station corp office so multiple characters can easily have access to them and can quickly and efficiently install jobs. DO NOT make us do more work and take more time to do industry jobs.
Another severely overlooked issue that this creates: This removes the ability of safely sharing bpos by locking them down in corp hanger in a station. BPOs can't be locked down at a pos. This change will limit how and where we can play severely. It forces people who want to play together to use certain systems and certain stations, to pay for spots at those stations and it practically makes setting up a pos a waste of time and effort, because it limits its usefulness. In the culture of eve (griefers/corp thieves/all) this change removes several much needed elements of safety that allow us to enjoy playing and interacting with a larger player base.
If you have decided to do this, as is suggested by other statements in this dev blog, because you haven't worked out how to deal how the slot change affects pos mods, then DO NOT make this change until you come up with a better solution. Because this is NOT the way to make this change happen.
POSes are expensive, take time, effort and a good amount of isk to maintain already. Forcing us to risk a considerable amount more and in doing so increase the amount of busy work that is required for doing industry is not a good change.
I personally have been playing Eve for 5 and a half years. Industry is one part of the game that I greatly enjoy doing. If this change does go through I will have to seriously consider if it is worth it to keep paying for my 4 accounts. Many of my friends who like this element of the game are already talking about leaving because of this. I sincerely hope that you will not go through with this change and that the other forthcoming industry changes are much more intelligently and thoughtfully crafted than this. If not, you will be losing a large group of your paying customers.
|
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
132
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:54:00 -
[191] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:oh yeah: with anyone able to put up a pos you actually need to code in refineries using skills or absolutely nobody in empire ever will use a station refinery Yes, this was an issue even before these changes, now it is pretty much imperative. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6891
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:55:00 -
[192] - Quote
how on earth are ~serious industrialists~ complaining that they might have a billion in bpos in a pos
it's an empire pos you get 24h notice before anyone can shoot it so you can vaccumn them all out and even if you don't, it's only a billion isk Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20757
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:56:00 -
[193] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Now.. tell me this was a typo! Are you guys serious about this?! I mean.. there are thousand of players whom spent like months grinding those stupid cosmos missions just to be able to drop a POS in hi sec and now your like.. "lol suckers!"
I'm not ragging because the change, I think it's a good thing because grinding those missions was/is a pain. But I'm pretty mad that I had to spend so many weeks .. for nothing. Same as skilling for refining, now every noob with a POS will be able to refine as good as I do .. wtf?! It wasn't for nothing. It gave you the ability to place POSes and refine perfectly. It was worth doing and it has paid off handsomely.
But like you say, it's a good thing. Having to grind a completely unrelated activity just to be good at industry was ridiculously silly.
Death Ryder wrote:your little improvements will turn high sec into a war zone and bring production across eve to a standstill in no time what so ever as the greifer CCP so fondly coddle up to begin destroying pos's left right and center in a damn orgy of wankerness... How so? And what makes that a bad thing?
Adellle Nadair wrote:[rant] Again, what you should be asking for probably isn't that they undo the changes, but that they ensure that copying becomes the new go-to method for distributed industry by making it at least 1:1 efficient compared to manufacturing from the BPOs. 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. |
xartin
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:56:00 -
[194] - Quote
Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
Go home ccp your drunk. |
Ruric Thyase
Star Frontiers Test Alliance Please Ignore
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:56:00 -
[195] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Chribba wrote:I will be there.
Removal of blueprints in stations suddenly became a major game changer!
/c Indeed, though not as much of a game changer (for most players) as the scaling cost to manufacture. Marketing hubs will likely no longer also be industrial hubs... and as industry spreads out so to may the market landscape. Win WIN!!!
I had the same thought and I wanted to wait and see who else would catch on. There is going to be very little industry (research, manufacturing) happening in major hubs like Jita and Amarr due to the %14 cost-share eating profits. People are going to relocate to quieter systems, but still in the close vicinity to the hub like Perimeter and Kor-Azor (respectively) . This in turn adds an additional cost. For the risk/reward does the industrialist take the risk and the cost of shipping for the reward of the competitive market hub, or does he instead attempt to sell the item where he is at?
Eventually though, those too will fill up and production moves another jump out. It will get to the point though that the opportunity cost of shipping is going to exceed the value of the item in a market hub and instead will be sold at the site of production.
Is this the real Burn Jita campaign? Im on to you CCP
I will say at least thanks to CCP for telling industrialists in advance so they can make preparations. Its going to be very interesting after the expansion hits.
|
Riela Tanal
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:58:00 -
[196] - Quote
The one thing that I disagree with is removing the ability for installing the jobs with the bpos in station, they are locked down to prevent corp theft of the bpos in the first place. There are few if any security measures in place in the POS code to prevent corp theft. Currently you only need a few roles in order to do manufacturing but you can't steal the bpo if its locked down
You need take access in a corp array in order to build, if you have those roles you can simply steal the bpo. This can be solved by making copies but some bpo copes are still worth a lot of isk and can be still stolen.
If the end goal is to have multiple teams working on industry projects, counter measures to be put in place to prevent corp theft as currently they are VERY limited especially in POS's. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
132
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:59:00 -
[197] - Quote
Tippia wrote:But like you say, it's a good thing. Having to grind a completely unrelated activity just to be good at industry was ridiculously silly. But we are still going to have to do that, as people will need standing for station refining unless they setup a POS. If this was the reason for the change, then surely the next logical step will be for standings to be taken out of consideration for station refining also.
|
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
1643
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:59:00 -
[198] - Quote
I'm a little shocked at the level of information coming out before Fanfest. Usually the month before is quiet as they want to showcase it in Iceland. I am pleasantly surprised. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6894
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:00:00 -
[199] - Quote
Querns wrote:On a related note:
The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS. Right now, if you want to move your POS to a new corporation upon wardec, it takes seven (7) days for standings to promulgate to the corporation's standings. This had the effect of severely limiting the amount of "POS cycling" that could occur. With the removal of standings from the equation, it is now a reasonable response, upon being wardecced, to create a new corporation, unanchor the POS under wardec, and sit on the moon in question in a cloaked industrial sitting in the new, unwardecced corporation, ready to anchor a new pos when the old one comes up.
I suggest that a new corporation be required to wait seven (7) days before being eligible to anchor a new pos. This brings the new era in line with the convoluted, yet functional system that exists today. This is a good idea and should get implemented. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
70
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:01:00 -
[200] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:how on earth are ~serious industrialists~ complaining that they might have a billion in bpos in a pos
it's an empire pos you get 24h notice before anyone can shoot it so you can vaccumn them all out and even if you don't, it's only a billion isk
I had over 40b in BPOs researching at a single pos at one point, and even then it was hard to justify the cost of fuel. If the BPOs need to be in the labs, that sort of operation is only 24 hours without the right people being able to log in away from complete disaster. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6894
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:01:00 -
[201] - Quote
Riela Tanal wrote:You need take access in a corp array in order to build, if you have those roles you can simply steal the bpo. This can be solved by making copies but some bpo copes are still worth a lot of isk and can be still stolen. what ones are worth more than like 20m isk besides supercaps Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6894
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:03:00 -
[202] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:Weaselior wrote:how on earth are ~serious industrialists~ complaining that they might have a billion in bpos in a pos
it's an empire pos you get 24h notice before anyone can shoot it so you can vaccumn them all out and even if you don't, it's only a billion isk I had over 40b in BPOs researching at a single pos at one point, and even then it was hard to justify the cost of fuel. If the BPOs need to be in the labs, that sort of operation is only 24 hours without the right people being able to log in away from complete disaster. I have over 100b of bpos technically in a pos right now, obviously I will move around which ones are where but for anything short of supercap bpos it's hardly a big deal to put it at risk. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
288
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:03:00 -
[203] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Riela Tanal wrote:You need take access in a corp array in order to build, if you have those roles you can simply steal the bpo. This can be solved by making copies but some bpo copes are still worth a lot of isk and can be still stolen. what ones are worth more than like 20m isk besides supercaps T2 BPOs.
To that, I say just remove T2 BPOs. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20757
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:04:00 -
[204] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Tippia wrote:But like you say, it's a good thing. Having to grind a completely unrelated activity just to be good at industry was ridiculously silly. But we are still going to have to do that, as people will need standing for station refining unless they setup a POS. If this was the reason for the change, then surely the next logical step will be for standings to be taken out of consideration for station refining also. Nah. it just means that those who want to do it on a large scale will get a POS; those who just need to do it occasionally (say, to compact their loot) will most likely be in a profession where they'll have those standings.
Having the NPC-provided service be worse or more cumbersome is a good thing GÇö it provides a meaning to actually putting in the effort of maintaining your own refinery. 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. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:04:00 -
[205] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Riela Tanal wrote:You need take access in a corp array in order to build, if you have those roles you can simply steal the bpo. This can be solved by making copies but some bpo copes are still worth a lot of isk and can be still stolen. what ones are worth more than like 20m isk besides supercaps
10 Run BPO BS, BPC, Dread/Carrier BPC, T2 BPC ... shall I continue? |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
172
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:05:00 -
[206] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down.
If you can do this, you will make a lot of wormholers very happy to
Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
Amari Jackson
Zacharia Explorations Group Black Crescent Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:05:00 -
[207] - Quote
Mostly good stuff! Two questions/concerns:
Question: now that we'll be able to anchor anywhere regardless of standings...can we also anchor POSes anywhere without needing a moon? (Brah can hope, at least).
Concern: BPOs in POSes...makes this industrialist veeeeery uncomfortable. I'm not concerned about wardecs as much as corp theft. Why make an 'Easy' button for corp thefts like that. Unless you have another trick up your sleeve.
Snarky comment: the moment I die, my consciousness wakes up on the other side of the universe in seconds...but I can't transmit a blueprint for a bullet across the street! I know, I know. :gameplay:. Still annoying and silly. |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
70
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:05:00 -
[208] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Boltorano wrote:Weaselior wrote:how on earth are ~serious industrialists~ complaining that they might have a billion in bpos in a pos
it's an empire pos you get 24h notice before anyone can shoot it so you can vaccumn them all out and even if you don't, it's only a billion isk I had over 40b in BPOs researching at a single pos at one point, and even then it was hard to justify the cost of fuel. If the BPOs need to be in the labs, that sort of operation is only 24 hours without the right people being able to log in away from complete disaster. I have over 100b of bpos technically in a pos right now, obviously I will move around which ones are where but for anything short of supercap bpos it's hardly a big deal to put it at risk.
I don't outright disagree with this change, but suggesting that profitable research farms operate with only "a billion in BPOs" is just silly. |
JITAALT808
Boom. Boom. Boom.
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:06:00 -
[209] - Quote
I'm not happy that my faction standings that I worked so hard for are now useless. Did you guys give any thought to the effects on mission runners who were making a business out of POS standings? Or to mission runners in general? Basically, standings are worthless at this point. In effect, they are nothing more than a penalty on those with bad standings, as there is only one remaining benefit -- access to L4s for faction standings of 5+. All other standings above that number are quite literally useless save for the bonus bpc's (big whoop) and a reduction in taxes for trading (also big whoop for everyone but serious traders). |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6898
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:06:00 -
[210] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Weaselior wrote:Riela Tanal wrote:You need take access in a corp array in order to build, if you have those roles you can simply steal the bpo. This can be solved by making copies but some bpo copes are still worth a lot of isk and can be still stolen. what ones are worth more than like 20m isk besides supercaps 10 Run BPO BS, BPC, Dread/Carrier BPC, T2 BPC ... shall I continue? under 10m, like 20-50m, under 10m except probably jf and blops and marauders which run at most like 100m
so yes, please continue proving bpcs are simply not a real theft target Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
Ruric Thyase
Star Frontiers Test Alliance Please Ignore
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:07:00 -
[211] - Quote
What about altering the role of Supply Chain Management?
That way people can still keep their BPOs where they are presently, but if they train that skill then they can initiate the build in a station with less activity and not pay the full 14% (for example).
|
Quazal Atreides
StarTrucks
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:07:00 -
[212] - Quote
Can i ask my quetsions again!
How big will the RAMs be given they are 100x more required per bpc!.
conider
Anshar requires 40 ram if you saying that this will be multiplied by 100 and then .95 (the damage per run) we will be talking about 3800 ram per anshar run And at 4m3 per one that will require 15200m3
Can i please have an answer on this
Finally what will happen to our existing ram will the all be multiplied by 100x Still the only person to offer corp creation free of charge. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=35634#post35634 Created over 200 was 3rd on the all time corporation job history on eve-board. This service is in stasis due to personal game time... |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
69
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:07:00 -
[213] - Quote
- Didn't realize you were talking about BPCs in a POS- |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6898
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:08:00 -
[214] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Actually, most module BPOs with decent PE/ME research are worth quite a bit more than 20m. yeah except we're talking about copies, not bpos Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:08:00 -
[215] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Querns wrote:On a related note:
The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS. Right now, if you want to move your POS to a new corporation upon wardec, it takes seven (7) days for standings to promulgate to the corporation's standings. This had the effect of severely limiting the amount of "POS cycling" that could occur. With the removal of standings from the equation, it is now a reasonable response, upon being wardecced, to create a new corporation, unanchor the POS under wardec, and sit on the moon in question in a cloaked industrial sitting in the new, unwardecced corporation, ready to anchor a new pos when the old one comes up.
I suggest that a new corporation be required to wait seven (7) days before being eligible to anchor a new pos. This brings the new era in line with the convoluted, yet functional system that exists today. This is a good idea and should get implemented.
So an industrialist needs a spare corporation in reserve? I am not sure your suggestion addresses the claimed problem. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6898
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:10:00 -
[216] - Quote
Kadl wrote: So an industrialist needs a spare corporation in reserve? I am not sure your suggestion addresses the problem.
tying up an alt makes it at least require a mediocum of planning to trivially avoid wardecs
i would still be irritated at the ease but it would be a vast improvement you must admit Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
288
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:11:00 -
[217] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Weaselior wrote:Querns wrote:On a related note:
The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS. Right now, if you want to move your POS to a new corporation upon wardec, it takes seven (7) days for standings to promulgate to the corporation's standings. This had the effect of severely limiting the amount of "POS cycling" that could occur. With the removal of standings from the equation, it is now a reasonable response, upon being wardecced, to create a new corporation, unanchor the POS under wardec, and sit on the moon in question in a cloaked industrial sitting in the new, unwardecced corporation, ready to anchor a new pos when the old one comes up.
I suggest that a new corporation be required to wait seven (7) days before being eligible to anchor a new pos. This brings the new era in line with the convoluted, yet functional system that exists today. This is a good idea and should get implemented. So an industrialist needs a spare corporation in reserve? I am not sure your suggestion addresses the problem. It would work once, then if they were wardecced again, they'd be screwed. This is similar to how the system works today.
How many character slots are you willing to dedicate to new refugee corporations? 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
2905
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:11:00 -
[218] - Quote
Death Ryder wrote:my question to CCP Ytterbium is this....
ARE YOU A FREAKING IDIOT...
your little improvements will turn high sec into a war zone and bring production across eve to a standstill in no time what so ever as the greifer CCP so fondly coddle up to begin destroying pos's left right and center in a damn orgy of wankerness... the future of highsec is... sticky |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:12:00 -
[219] - Quote
Again we will see that you can not force people to play stupid.
PvPers keep demanding that rules be changed to make it easier to kill, get stuff.
Once again, all that will happen is that the potential easy targets will alter their play style in a way that means it is still not easy to kill them or get their stuff.
Blueprints have to be at a POS? Okay. We'll create a 1 person, 6 alt corp in high sec, with a large POS with a gazillion hardeners. All we will do with it is crank out BPCs from the BPOs. You'd need hundreds of battleships for a whole day to crack the POS.
Then we will jump the copies out to low/null.
You cannot make us play in a way that makes it easy to kill us and take our stuff. All you can do is make us change our play style, or simply stop playing.
I am getting so sick and tired of the PvPers whining.. oh, change this, or change that... then it would be easy to kill the non-PvPers, or change this so it is easier to get their expensive stuff. WRONG!!!! Change this or that, and we will just adapt our play. We are never going to play a game where we exist to be easy targets for the PvPers. EVER!
People are not going to be putting 10s or 100s of billion of ISK worth of PBOs into corporate POSes, unless is it an alt corp of just their alts.
Removing the ability to leave the BPO at the station and build/research from it at the POS is a stupid, stupid, stupid change, that creates hastle for the industrialist, and WILL NOT achieve the intended purpose of putting the BPOs at risk, because industrialists are not stupid enough to do things that would put those BPOs at risk.
You can't make us play stupid!!!! |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3297
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:12:00 -
[220] - Quote
Quazal Atreides wrote:Can i ask my quetsions again!
How big will the RAMs be given they are 100x more required per bpc!.
conider
Anshar requires 40 ram if you saying that this will be multiplied by 100 and then .95 (the damage per run) we will be talking about 3800 ram per anshar run And at 4m3 per one that will require 15200m3
Can i please have an answer on this
Finally what will happen to our existing ram will the all be multiplied by 100x
Good point as well. We'll have a look at volumes and keep you posted if we do any change.
And regarding existing RAM / RDB, yes, they'll be multiplied by 100. |
|
|
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight Initiative Associates
26
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:13:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets? The new UI will show you the accurate price before you actually install the job.
Sadly most manufacturing profit comes to an average of about 5% of the value of the item. This means that depending on the usage of the station, it is entirely possible for the profit to be completely lost. Can we please have a graph and numbers to show exactly how this scaling works? For those of us who actually do large amounts of manufacturing, being able to reasonably predict production cost is essential. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:14:00 -
[222] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Weaselior wrote:Riela Tanal wrote:You need take access in a corp array in order to build, if you have those roles you can simply steal the bpo. This can be solved by making copies but some bpo copes are still worth a lot of isk and can be still stolen. what ones are worth more than like 20m isk besides supercaps 10 Run BPO BS, BPC, Dread/Carrier BPC, T2 BPC ... shall I continue? under 10m, like 20-50m, under 10m except probably jf and blops and marauders which run at most like 100m so yes, please continue proving bpcs are simply not a real theft target
Rofl... when was the last time you had a look at full run BS and Cap BPC? And a lot of the T2 BPC for BLOPS/HAC/CS/JF (ofc) are worth more than 20M and if stored in numbers in a POS for production very well a juicy target in addition to the other billions in materials in the POS for the production and invention. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2721
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:14:00 -
[223] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Calorn Marthor wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:About being able to anchor POSes anywhere in high sec: Does that mean the very high security systems will become available? For example, right now you cannot anchor a POS in a 1.0 system. Will that change? Can someone answer this one please? Will we be able to set up towers in 0.8+ sec? You will be able to anchor towers in any system in hi sec, except systems that are restricted, like rookie systems and trade hubs like Jita. This is the same restricted list as the one that applies to POCOs for instance. Land rush!
LAND RUSH!!!! http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Grendell
Technologies Unlimited Superior Eve Engineering
861
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:14:00 -
[224] - Quote
I really hope you address the blueprint voting/lockdown system before making the slot changes. Allow a sort of emergency quick vote or something when the starbase gets attacked or reinforced.
|
Canenald
Rubella Solaris Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:15:00 -
[225] - Quote
Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down. |
Slappy Andven
A.C.M.E. Construction Inc. Criminal Minds
22
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:15:00 -
[226] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Riela Tanal wrote:You need take access in a corp array in order to build, if you have those roles you can simply steal the bpo. This can be solved by making copies but some bpo copes are still worth a lot of isk and can be still stolen. what ones are worth more than like 20m isk besides supercaps
Researched to the level most of us have them at? A LOT of them. Normal cap parts, subcap ships, even some rigs. You are ignoring how long it takes to research these things.
---á Slappy Andven CEO A.C.M.E. Construction, Inc.
|
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
70
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:16:00 -
[227] - Quote
JITAALT808 wrote:I'm not happy that my faction standings that I worked so hard for are now useless. Did you guys give any thought to the effects on mission runners who were making a business out of POS standings? Or to mission runners in general? Basically, standings are worthless at this point. In effect, they are nothing more than a penalty on those with bad standings, as there is only one remaining benefit -- access to L4s for faction standings of 5+. All other standings above that number are quite literally useless save for the bonus bpc's (big whoop) and a reduction in taxes for trading (also big whoop for everyone but serious traders).
I appreciate that you've taken advantage of emergent gameplay and found yourself a niche way to make ISK. That said, sometimes changes should be made for the greater good of all. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20762
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:16:00 -
[228] - Quote
Adellle Nadair wrote:Sadly most manufacturing profit comes to an average of about 5% of the value of the item. This means that depending on the usage of the station, it is entirely possible for the profit to be completely lost. Can we please have a graph and numbers to show exactly how this scaling works? For those of us who actually do large amounts of manufacturing, being able to reasonably predict production cost is essential. It'll be in blog #5, according to the GÇ£big planGÇ¥ section. 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. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:16:00 -
[229] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets? The new UI will show you the accurate price before you actually install the job.
And can I get an answer in that regard to my question? How are we supposed to compare stations in regard to the different cost levels without ferrying the stuff around? Or have you also not thought this through? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6898
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:17:00 -
[230] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Rofl... when was the last time you had a look at full run BS and Cap BPC? And a lot of the T2 BPC for BLOPS/HAC/CS/JF (ofc) are worth more than 20M and if stored in numbers in a POS for production very well a juicy target in addition to the other billions in materials in the POS for the production and invention. bs bpcs have been under a million a run for like half a decade
when it comes to sticking ENOUGH 20m t2 bpcs in a pos to become a theft target: who cares, you're leaving more stuff in there that's a much better theft target like, say, the materials for those ships or the finished ships themselves
until then you keep them in an audit can or the like, it is incredibly trivial to secure your bpcs if you insist on having a theft-worthy amount and it is mind-boggling this simple problem it takes thirty seconds to reason out a solution to has people crying for a change Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:18:00 -
[231] - Quote
It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.
30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers. Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS. No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.
That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.
I wonder what the logic is behind this. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5574
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:19:00 -
[232] - Quote
Xaniff wrote:1. Please say those new images in the blueprint Get Info aren't here to stay. I rather like the text-driven tabs.
2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
3. If there's no lockdown available for blueprints, that's going to seriously up the risk of hauling out stuff like capital component BPOs to the station that are pretty much required non-stop in ship production.
4. While you're redoing the arrays and research facilities, could you add in folders or some sort of container so we can better sort through whose stuff is whose instead of having to rely on a complicated shell game of corporate divisions? Edit: Though judging by that screenshot, it looks like that might have already been considered. I don't think the lock down change is going to be much of an issue. If they are reducing copy time you will simply spit out BPC's to do your manufacturing from.
Now creating those BPC's might have some issues from that standpoint in research POS"s, unless you want to do all of your bpc creation strictly at NPC stations or Outposts.
I'm pretty sure the time consumed with the current voting process to lock/unlock BP's is the main factor they are worried about... because if your POS comes under attack you would not have enough time to go through this process to get your BP's out of harms way before the POS goes into reinforced. 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. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6898
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:19:00 -
[233] - Quote
Grendell wrote:I really hope you address the blueprint voting/lockdown system before making the slot changes. Allow a sort of emergency quick vote or something when the starbase gets attacked or reinforced.
unneeded: you can't lock a bpo in a pos even with this
the only use would be to make it even easier to corp-hop to avoid wardecs by moving your station bpos which isn't something we should be encouraging i think Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Enteron Anabente
Provisional Provisions
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:20:00 -
[234] - Quote
Enteron Anabente wrote:I would encourage you to reconsider the copy times change on T2 BPOs. Making copy times shorter than build times on those BPOs is de facto making them even better money printers than (some of them, at least) already are--if a T2 BPO owner used to be able to manufacture 10 items per day, now he will be able to manufacture 12 per day at essentially the same unit cost (yes, I just made those numbers up). This pushes small-scale T2 producers who rely on invention out of business, since the supply from the cheaper T2 BPOs will be increasing.
TL;DR: making copying times shorter than production times for T2 BPOs will concentrate more wealth in the hands of already-wealthy people and hurt small-scale industrialists. Please don't do it.
Can I at least get acknowledgement that a dev saw this, please? |
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight Initiative Associates
26
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:20:00 -
[235] - Quote
David Magnus wrote:I sincerely hope that you have fully thought through the BPO changes.
Having to move BPOs around and not being able to leave them locked down, or lock them down in a POS is an open invitation to corp theft.
Removing the usefulness of this basic protection will only encourage people to make 1-man corps and discourage anyone from working together once they have any BPO of significant value. BPOs are one of the only assets that have lasting, significant, and appreciating value. You may think think that adjusting the risk/reward on these will spark more gameplay, but it will only encourage people to play solo.
Agreed. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:21:00 -
[236] - Quote
The issue with needing faction standing to place a high sec tower is that it is based on all members of the corp. It is very, very hard to get all members of a corp to all agree to grind up their stansdings. This means people have to leave corp for a couple days.
To me, the better fix, rather than removing the need for corp standing, would be to change it from "all members" to just the CEO. Or, perhaps a "top 20%" of corp members are counted toward corp standing.
As for it taking months, or even a month... I've been able to grind standing to 7.0-8.0 in a week. Tutorials like 6 times, SoE, tags, COSMOS missions. It is not that hard.
Grinding corp standings for perfect refine was much more difficult than faction standing.
Querns wrote:Weaselior wrote:Riela Tanal wrote:You need take access in a corp array in order to build, if you have those roles you can simply steal the bpo. This can be solved by making copies but some bpo copes are still worth a lot of isk and can be still stolen. what ones are worth more than like 20m isk besides supercaps T2 BPOs. To that, I say just remove T2 BPOs.
Agreed!
Turn all the existing T2BPOs into BPCs with like 10 years worth of runs.
That would allow CCP to fix invention (that intentionally sucks just to maintain T2BPO value), and give new players to eventually, some decade, be able to compete on equal footing.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
288
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:22:00 -
[237] - Quote
Honestly, any situation in which the potential for theft increases is a good thing for eve. Trust being a weak link is one of the things that makes Eve great, and makes it actually stand out from other games in the same market. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Elena Thiesant
Sun Micro Systems
1323
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:23:00 -
[238] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:You will be able to see all your blueprints in assembly arrays etc and remotely start jobs from containers, so that should cover your use case..
Remotely start jobs from BPs which are in containers? Please say that wasn't a mis-type, That alone will make so much difference.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20762
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:23:00 -
[239] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.
30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers. Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS. No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.
That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.
I wonder what the logic is behind this. Well, for one, salvagers don't care about loot reprocessing GÇö they care about salvage. Highsec researchers can still use POSes, only now it'll be for cost reasons rather than availability reasons. That leaves the third one, which was an idiotic mechanic to begin with, so if that profession dies a horrible death, it's a worth-while sacrifice for the greater good. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5574
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:23:00 -
[240] - Quote
Canenald wrote:Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down. Yeah, just like the creation of a GUI dumbed down computer use.
Hell, now EVERONE will be able to do it... sheesh. 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. |
|
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:23:00 -
[241] - Quote
You didn't explain how the price scaling will or will not be implemented for sovereignty nullsec. Does this mean that outposts will be forced into this pricing scheme? or will they remain a manually specified cost? or will we have the ability to choose between one or the other since, as it is nullsec, we own the outpost. |
Myxx
698
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:23:00 -
[242] - Quote
Greyscale should never be allowed near EVE design, this has been commonly known for some time now. I am beginning to think very similarly of Yitterbum and friends. All in all, for me, all you're doing is adding a few more annoyances to what I already do.
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
570
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:24:00 -
[243] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets? The new UI will show you the accurate price before you actually install the job. And can I get an answer in that regard to my question? How are we supposed to compare stations in regard to the different cost levels without ferrying the stuff around? Or have you also not thought this through?
You will be able to get a quote from a station you are not at, with a blueprint you don't even own. More details to follow in the UI blog. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders
252
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:25:00 -
[244] - Quote
Makoto Priano wrote:Actually, QUESTION!
So. If you're removing the standing requirement for anchoring POSes because it doesn't add gameplay value, will you also be removing the standing requirement for installing jumpclones?
That said, if you're removing standings requirements and standings now only really matter for taxes/agent access, will you be adding new standing-gated rewards to LP stores or something like that? Pretty please?
They should probably just remove standings all together. There really is no value for having high standings anymore except for access to high level missions. QCATS is recruiting:-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3896299 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20762
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:25:00 -
[245] - Quote
Alyxportur wrote:You didn't explain how the price scaling will or will not be implemented for sovereignty nullsec. Does this mean that outposts will be forced into this pricing scheme? or will they remain a manually specified cost? or will we have the ability to choose between one or the other since, as it is nullsec, we own the outpost. It applies everywhere, per a previous comment GÇö the congestion fees become a new universal ISK sink. 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. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6898
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:25:00 -
[246] - Quote
Alyxportur wrote:You didn't explain how the price scaling will or will not be implemented for sovereignty nullsec. Does this mean that outposts will be forced into this pricing scheme? or will they remain a manually specified cost? or will we have the ability to choose between one or the other since, as it is nullsec, we own the outpost. They did: outposts have the same cost scaling mechanic and that part goes into a sink, the station owner can also manually specify a cost.
What was not specified is how fast they scale up - if, say, an amarr station with 100 simultaneous jobs has the same cost as a highsec station with 100 or if its lower, and I assume that will be mentioned when they also mention what they're doing with the slot bonus upgrades. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
153
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:26:00 -
[247] - Quote
The mentioning of Teams makes me want to have CREWS. |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:27:00 -
[248] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Well, for one, salvagers don't care about loot reprocessing GÇö they care about salvage.
Alright then "looters/salvagers" I thought that was clear.
Looting and salvaging level 4's for example about 80% of the ISK comes from loot. A 30-40% drop in value is significant. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
289
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:27:00 -
[249] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:The mentioning of Teams makes me want to have CREWS. We already have them, in missile form.
Get it? CREWS MISSILES
Excuse me, I need to pay penance for this. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:28:00 -
[250] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kadl wrote: So an industrialist needs a spare corporation in reserve? I am not sure your suggestion addresses the claimed problem.
tying up an alt makes it at least require a mediocum of planning to trivially avoid wardecs i would still be irritated at the ease but it would be a vast improvement you must admit
No. It just looks like an impediment to newer industrialists while older industrialists with more accounts get a pass. Designing a feature whose main focus is to hinder newer players seems foolish. The problem I see is related to the War Dec, corporation, and POS systems. All of those need real iterations to make them functional. So, yes you should be able to claim a POS or POCO location using a War Dec. Making high sec industry more convoluted does not seem like the proper solution. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20763
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:28:00 -
[251] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:The mentioning of Teams makes me want to have CREWS. Crews? 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. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:29:00 -
[252] - Quote
Grendell wrote:I really hope you address the blueprint voting/lockdown system before making the slot changes. Allow a sort of emergency quick vote or something when the starbase gets attacked or reinforced.
You can't lockdown blueprints at the POS.
Therefore, they won't be there, because the risk of corp theft is way too high! |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:29:00 -
[253] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets? The new UI will show you the accurate price before you actually install the job. And can I get an answer in that regard to my question? How are we supposed to compare stations in regard to the different cost levels without ferrying the stuff around? Or have you also not thought this through? You will be able to get a quote from a station you are not at, with a blueprint you don't even own. More details to follow in the UI blog.
Nice, that is finally good news.
|
Valterra Craven
171
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:29:00 -
[254] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Querns wrote:On a related note:
The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS. Right now, if you want to move your POS to a new corporation upon wardec, it takes seven (7) days for standings to promulgate to the corporation's standings. This had the effect of severely limiting the amount of "POS cycling" that could occur. With the removal of standings from the equation, it is now a reasonable response, upon being wardecced, to create a new corporation, unanchor the POS under wardec, and sit on the moon in question in a cloaked industrial sitting in the new, unwardecced corporation, ready to anchor a new pos when the old one comes up.
I suggest that a new corporation be required to wait seven (7) days before being eligible to anchor a new pos. This brings the new era in line with the convoluted, yet functional system that exists today. This is a good idea and should get implemented.
Its a stupid idea, all you need is several alts in different corps as backups. You're goons, the second a new feature is added you *always* look for ways to circumvent it and laugh in CCPs face (see mobile bounty system in useless anoms) |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
646
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:30:00 -
[255] - Quote
So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?
I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
71
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:30:00 -
[256] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Tippia wrote: Well, for one, salvagers don't care about loot reprocessing GÇö they care about salvage.
Alright then "looters/salvagers" I thought that was clear. Looting and salvaging level 4's for example about 80% of the ISK comes from loot. A 30-40% drop in value is significant.
That lost income to mission runners will most likely result in more income for miners, which is something I'm completely fine with. "Mining with guns." should never have been a thing, and CCP has slowly been correcting that error. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
572
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:30:00 -
[257] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Canenald wrote:Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down. Yeah, just like the creation of a GUI dumbed down computer use. Hell, now EVERONE will be able to do it... sheesh.
We talk a lot about good and bad complexity within the team. A fair portion of the industry changes are pretty clear examples of removing bad complexity, while still keeping the interesting problems for players to solve.
Some of the changes are also centered around cleaning up years of legacy code, freeing us up to better iterate on the feature and do more sexy looking UI CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
153
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:31:00 -
[258] - Quote
Seriousrly who in their right mind puts billons worth of BPO's at a ******* POS? and with the standings change to anchoring people have been crying for a change since forever, Now CCP makes is easier so you dont have to rescue "The Damsel" 1,000,000th time and people stll *****?
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries Solar Assault Fleet
1057
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:31:00 -
[259] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:I have not much to comment except this: 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). Now.. tell me this was a typo! Are you guys serious about this?! I mean.. there are thousand of players whom spent like months grinding those stupid cosmos missions just to be able to drop a POS in hi sec and now your like.. "lol suckers!" Erh, yes.
It's happened before, and it'll happen again.
Luckily standings are useful for more stuff than hanging towers.
And yes, I've spent quite sometime grinding standings, and even doing Cosmos, to be able to hang towers ;)
Vote for Fuzzy Steve! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6898
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:32:00 -
[260] - Quote
Kadl wrote:No. It just looks like an impediment to newer industrialists while older industrialists with more accounts get a pass. Designing a feature whose main focus is to hinder newer players seems foolish. The problem I see is related to the War Dec, corporation, and POS systems. All of those need real iterations to make them functional. So, yes you should be able to claim a POS or POCO location using a War Dec. Making high sec industry more convoluted does not seem like the proper solution. your proposal that we ought not improve things until there is a complete fix is dumb and wrong
by effectively charging 1/3rd a plex for a (weak) wardec immunity, and charging 2 1/3rds plex per month for complete wardec immunity, we significantly penalize the cowardly through an easy-to-implement system that dramatically improves wardecs without requiring massive change Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
Myxx
699
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:33:00 -
[261] - Quote
Btw, as far as defending a pos goes in highsec: Ever heard of a dickstar? In highsec, those can be especially annoying to deal with. your goal with risking stuff in a starbase might not work the way you think it will. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6898
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:33:00 -
[262] - Quote
Entity wrote:So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?
I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated
eight years was 7.9 too long Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6898
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:35:00 -
[263] - Quote
protip research poshavers: it is expected and anticipated your expensive bpos will be moved to station slots, you should stop appearing flabbergasted that you will have to move them Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Knug LiDi
Quafe Commandos The Obsidian Front
71
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:36:00 -
[264] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets? The new UI will show you the accurate price before you actually install the job.
That's nice - BUT - I want to know this cost BEFORE I transport materials to a particular station. I.e. the cost amount need to be reflected in the information about that station. And, of course, it is dynamic.
This is necessary. Trial and error trying to find cheap manufacturing while carrying materials is stupid. If the rate is dynamic, it needs to be on the equivalent of a market, so players have the intel to decide how far/how much. Doing this while carrying good is idiotic. Flying to 50 stations to determine a value that may change before I get back is wrong. Let me view the local 'market' for manufacturing just like a can examine the market for ore. Then I will make market decisions
If only we could fall into a woman's arms
without falling into her hands |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:36:00 -
[265] - Quote
Boltorano wrote: That lost income to mission runners will most likely result in more income for miners, which is something I'm completely fine with. "Mining with guns." should never have been a thing, and CCP has slowly been correcting that error.
Yeah. Seems reasonable to me. Create a "Sandbox", let people create their own professions and then remove them.
Sure it's corrective. But "sandbox" it is not.
Edit : Not that it really matters in trying to argue that Eve isn't much of a sandbox these days; it was always a fucxing stupid marketing campaign. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
JITAALT808
Boom. Boom. Boom.
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:36:00 -
[266] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:JITAALT808 wrote:I'm not happy that my faction standings that I worked so hard for are now useless. Did you guys give any thought to the effects on mission runners who were making a business out of POS standings? Or to mission runners in general? Basically, standings are worthless at this point. In effect, they are nothing more than a penalty on those with bad standings, as there is only one remaining benefit -- access to L4s for faction standings of 5+. All other standings above that number are quite literally useless save for the bonus bpc's (big whoop) and a reduction in taxes for trading (also big whoop for everyone but serious traders). I appreciate that you've taken advantage of emergent gameplay and found yourself a niche way to make ISK. That said, sometimes changes should be made for the greater good of all. It doesn't have to be a zero sum solution. Those standings were hard to get. Especially for those of us who worked to get multiple faction standings up (riding the seesaw ain't no fun). That work should count for something and there should be rewards for having done it. The most common refrain I'm seeing so far is, "well you got to use it in the past." To which I can only reply, "let's see if you say that after capitals are removed from the game and no one gets the skillpoints back. I mean, you got to use it in the past, right?"
Those standings should be worth something and they should affect something. If they don't, then the concept needs to be entirely removed from the game, and the people who put the work in should get something for it. You can bet you sweet ass that station owners are not going to get screwed over with the changes to slot mechanics (Devs have already said that another dev blog will address those changes). Why should mission runners get screwed? |
Nathan Natinde
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:36:00 -
[267] - Quote
I have a large POS, only one other guy has access, (and then only because I know him in RL because 'EVE') I already have billions in assembly arrays and labs at risk
The only thing that makes my industry experience bearable is that I can keep HUNDREDS of (Non stackable) T2 BPC's, Ship / Module / Component BPO's in ONE corp hanger in a station and set the jobs going on multiple characters from there. (Maxed out builder gets a whole 11 slots of each and you do not get EVE rich making T2 on one character))
So now I have to split all the blueprints up as well, have all my characters log in out at the POS and memorize which pesky array or lab I left each in. Or swallow hefty fees that apparently will make losses.
All this would be fine if I made one or 2 items, but to make ISK in EVE without a T2 BPO you should to be flexible and ready to make practically any item. I don't mind the risks, or particularly having to make more things at the POS (as long as the awful drawbacks on T2 ship arrays go away) but honestly I don't need industry to be more complicated for Blueprints. |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
646
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:37:00 -
[268] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Entity wrote:So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?
I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated eight years was 7.9 too long
Risk free? What? Is your brain turned off or something?
- The pos alone is worth 8 billion+ (all faction stuff) - I stand to lose a month worth of product to the tune of 20 billion if someone decides to blow it up.
I'm fine with -that- risk, but having to literally put ALL my eggs in that one easy to pop basket is completely unacceptable. GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? |
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries Solar Assault Fleet
1057
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:37:00 -
[269] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Canenald wrote:Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down. Yeah, just like the creation of a GUI dumbed down computer use. Hell, now EVERONE will be able to do it... sheesh. We talk a lot about good and bad complexity within the team. A fair portion of the industry changes are pretty clear examples of removing bad complexity, while still keeping the interesting problems for players to solve. Some of the changes are also centered around cleaning up years of legacy code, freeing us up to better iterate on the feature and do more sexy looking UI Success in industry should be about knowing what to build, how, where, when, sourced from where and sold at the right place and at the right time.
Edit: and for the right price.
It should never be about to be able to stand or navigate a stupid UI. Vote for Fuzzy Steve! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6899
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:38:00 -
[270] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Boltorano wrote: That lost income to mission runners will most likely result in more income for miners, which is something I'm completely fine with. "Mining with guns." should never have been a thing, and CCP has slowly been correcting that error.
Yeah. Seems reasonable to me. Create a "Sandbox", let people create their own professions and then remove them. Sure it's corrective. But "sandbox" it is not. sandbox means you can never change anything ever, said nobody with an ounce of sense ever
seriously is there a single time that anyone has ever used sandbox in a post in one of these threads where their post didn't amount to whining that anything could possibly change Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:38:00 -
[271] - 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). Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. Improve Mobile Laboratories and Assembly Arrays to compensate for such risk GÇô weGÇÖll give you final numbers as soon as we have them. Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original."
Please remove / increase the 5 max runs per blueprint copy stat on capital component blueprints, building hundreds of these from copies will be insane. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
574
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:39:00 -
[272] - Quote
Knug LiDi wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets? The new UI will show you the accurate price before you actually install the job. That's nice - BUT - I want to know this cost BEFORE I transport materials to a particular station. I.e. the cost amount need to be reflected in the information about that station. And, of course, it is dynamic. This is necessary. Trial and error trying to find cheap manufacturing while carrying materials is stupid. If the rate is dynamic, it needs to be on the equivalent of a market, so players have the intel to decide how far/how much. Doing this while carrying good is idiotic. Flying to 50 stations to determine a value that may change before I get back is wrong. Let me view the local 'market' for manufacturing just like a can examine the market for ore. Then I will make market decisions
You will be able to request a quote from a station before a) going there b) moving materials and even c) purchasing the blueprint. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
72
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:39:00 -
[273] - Quote
JITAALT808 wrote:I appreciate that you've taken advantage of emergent gameplay and found yourself a niche way to make ISK. That said, sometimes changes should be made for the greater good of all. It doesn't have to be a zero sum solution. Those standings were hard to get. Especially for those of us who worked to get multiple faction standings up (riding the seesaw ain't no fun). That work should count for something and there should be rewards for having done it. The most common refrain I'm seeing so far is, "well you got to use it in the past." To which I can only reply, "let's see if you say that after capitals are removed from the game and no one gets the skillpoints back. I mean, you got to use it in the past, right?"
Those standings should be worth something and they should affect something. If they don't, then the concept needs to be entirely removed from the game, and the people who put the work in should get something for it. You can bet you sweet ass that station owners are not going to get screwed over with the changes to slot mechanics (Devs have already said that another dev blog will address those changes). Why should mission runners get screwed?
CCP can come up with other ways to make standings useful to have, I just wouldn't expect answers to that in the feedback thread for an industry dev blog. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:39:00 -
[274] - Quote
Querns wrote:Honestly, any situation in which the potential for theft increases is a good thing for eve. Trust being a weak link is one of the things that makes Eve great, and makes it actually stand out from other games in the same market.
Assuming people are stupid, which they are not.
Make the risk of theft higher, We'll just create alt corps to own the BPOs, make BPCs, and make the BPCs available to the larger corp.
More hassle, but no more risk.
You can not make us play STUPID! You an only alter how we avoid risk. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
574
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:39:00 -
[275] - Quote
Lors Dornick wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Canenald wrote:Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down. Yeah, just like the creation of a GUI dumbed down computer use. Hell, now EVERONE will be able to do it... sheesh. We talk a lot about good and bad complexity within the team. A fair portion of the industry changes are pretty clear examples of removing bad complexity, while still keeping the interesting problems for players to solve. Some of the changes are also centered around cleaning up years of legacy code, freeing us up to better iterate on the feature and do more sexy looking UI Success in industry should be about knowing what to build, how, where, when, sourced from where and sold at the right place and at the right time. Edit: and for the right price. It should never be about to be able to stand or navigate a stupid UI.
This. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20765
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:39:00 -
[276] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:protip research poshavers: it is expected and anticipated your expensive bpos will be moved to station slots, you should stop appearing flabbergasted that you will have to move them Also, read the following line in the devblog again:
GÇó Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.
Moving the BPO around will be no more needed than it currently is. The big change is rather than you will need to expend one character's research capacity on creating copies to build from. 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
352
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:40:00 -
[277] - Quote
I've only had my first read of this and without the rest of the unpublished details and time to digest it all I can't really say much other than...
Impressive. |
Elem Ental
Bedouin Clan Alpha
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:40:00 -
[278] - Quote
That screenshot....I am smitten by its beauty <3 I seem to have forgotten, AH YES! Summer looks to be an exciting time indeed! Looking forward to it...Hey! Where the flop did my pants go!? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
290
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:40:00 -
[279] - Quote
Entity wrote:Weaselior wrote:Entity wrote:So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?
I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated eight years was 7.9 too long Risk free? What? Is your brain turned off or something? - The pos alone is worth 8 billion+ (all faction stuff) - I stand to lose a month worth of product to the tune of 20 billion if someone decides to blow it up. I'm fine with -that- risk, but having to literally put ALL my eggs in that one easy to pop basket is completely unacceptable. You are only turning over 20b a month on 2.5t isk? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:41:00 -
[280] - Quote
And the station's Office Rent costs at the limited number of research stations is going to skyrocket exponentially. It means all those who have offices in systems with no existing research stations will have to move their office and all their stuff to another system entirely.
Also, this will be a nightmare to be forced to build from blueprints that are in POS's, unless they only have to be in the shield and can be used by any array. How is this going to be addressed?
With all the hassle, it might not even be worth many industrialists to continue to have POS's in HS, since they will have to now shuttle all the materials and blueprints to/from each lab/array if they want to do something different with it.
Slightly good news for some of us who like to bash towers of afk-research-alts, but then, why would any of the AFK research alts even need a tower after this?
edit--
Also, that whole 'one window to rule them all' theme didn't work so well last time you tried it....you sure its a good idea to try it again via "Unified Industry" screen? |
|
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:41:00 -
[281] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: seriously is there a single time that anyone has ever used sandbox in a post in one of these threads where their post didn't amount to whining that anything could possibly change
Hey, I don't mind. I run a POS standing business - just got into it - but I'm not fussed. All I started out asking somewhere in this mess was "I wonder what their reasoning is." As per usual I know people who are quitting over the reprocessing change if nothing else. I'm sure my friend who runs a R&D business will consider leaving since it is his primary income and now it's not a thing anymore. I'm not going anywhere
TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:44:00 -
[282] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Tippia wrote: Well, for one, salvagers don't care about loot reprocessing GÇö they care about salvage.
Alright then "looters/salvagers" I thought that was clear. Looting and salvaging level 4's for example about 80% of the ISK comes from loot. A 30-40% drop in value is significant.
Agreed. Salvage prices have already taken a HUGE nose dive since the creation of noctis and salvage drones. Trit bars down from 130k to 16K. Armor plates down from 300K to 150K. Even tripps have taken a huge hit, though I don't have the exact drop in my head.
I did some playing around with ninja salvaging. Not worth it anymore, unless you are stealing loot on occasion. The loot in one can (like a large weapon and armor mods) is worth more than all the salvage for the entier mission. It should be renamed from ninja-salvage to ninja-looting, as that is the only real money. |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
646
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:44:00 -
[283] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Weaselior wrote:protip research poshavers: it is expected and anticipated your expensive bpos will be moved to station slots, you should stop appearing flabbergasted that you will have to move them Also, read the following line in the devblog again: GÇó Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Moving the BPO around will be no more needed than it currently is. The big change is rather than you will need to expend one character's research capacity on creating copies to build from.
With the volume I put out, having to make copies is not acceptable either. It would be an unnecessary clickfest to make that many copies. The number of jobs I would have to put in per session would jump from 10 to 200. and then 200 again to build the stuff. GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:44:00 -
[284] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:Boltorano wrote: That lost income to mission runners will most likely result in more income for miners, which is something I'm completely fine with. "Mining with guns." should never have been a thing, and CCP has slowly been correcting that error.
Yeah. Seems reasonable to me. Create a "Sandbox", let people create their own professions and then remove them. Sure it's corrective. But "sandbox" it is not. sandbox means you can never change anything ever, said nobody with an ounce of sense ever seriously is there a single time that anyone has ever used sandbox in a post in one of these threads where their post didn't amount to whining that anything could possibly change
I think what people complain about is that CCP stated several times that "no gameplay is removed", yet they remove gameplay. That has nothing to do with change happening or not. It just shows that CCP doesn't think things through. |
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight Initiative Associates
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:44:00 -
[285] - Quote
Quote:On the more critical side, I agree with some of the above posters that having to constantly move your blueprints around will be thoroughly annoying for large-scale producers GÇö it's already annoying enough with just having to collect and use BPCs from all your copying labs. This ties into the issue of not being able to share I/O between arrays, so to mass-produce certain goods, you constantly have to flit about carrying the correct BP for the myriad of arrays you want to populate. You generally already have to set up a given POS for a specific task, but this just makes it a lot worse.
Agreed.
Sadly, I'm coming to understand that these devs don't understand industry. Their knowledge of pvp and Eve in general through that viewpoint has gotten better over the past several years. But they don't understand the complexities, risks and enjoyment of industry.
CCP, hire industrialists to develop and create quality changes for the indy side of eve just as you have hired PvPers to handle the combat side. |
|
CCP Arrow
C C P C C P Alliance
501
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:45:00 -
[286] - Quote
We will be publishing a dedicated blog specifically for the UI of the Industry window where we go into more details about what the final player experience will be. Stay tuned! CCP Arrow-á-á|-á Game Design Director -á|-á-áEVE Online -á|-á-á@CCP_Arrow |
|
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
493
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:45:00 -
[287] - Quote
He's making a list, checkin' it twice, gonna find out, who's a shitlord or not. Miniluv is coming to town. The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20766
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:45:00 -
[288] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:I'm sure my friend who runs a R&D business will consider leaving since it is his primary income and now it's not a thing anymore. I'm not going anywhere But his primary income source is still a thing.
So far, contrary to all the doomsaying, the only profession that gets a slight kick in the nuts is corp-with-POS-standings creators. vOv
Entity wrote:With the volume I put out, having to make copies is not acceptable either. It would be an unnecessary clickfest to make that many copies. The number of jobs I would have to put in per session would jump from 10 to 200. and then 200 again to build the stuff. That will depend on the new UI a lot, though. 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. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6902
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:45:00 -
[289] - Quote
Entity wrote: Risk free? What? Is your brain turned off or something?
- The pos alone is worth 8 billion+ (all faction stuff) - I stand to lose a month worth of product to the tune of 20 billion if someone decides to blow it up.
I'm fine with -that- risk, but having to literally put ALL my eggs in that one easy to pop basket is completely unacceptable.
right which is why you will have to move to a station, increasing your cost and lowering your reward in exchange for the perfect safety you apparently can't do without Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:46:00 -
[290] - Quote
[quote=Rivr Luzade I think what people complain about is that CCP stated several times that "no gameplay is removed", yet they remove gameplay. That has nothing to do with change happening or not. It just shows that CCP doesn't think things through.[/quote]
Pretty much.
"Reprocessing loot makes too many minerals."
Who introduced the mobile tractor, enabling mission runners to passively loot things?
Classic. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:46:00 -
[291] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kadl wrote:No. It just looks like an impediment to newer industrialists while older industrialists with more accounts get a pass. Designing a feature whose main focus is to hinder newer players seems foolish. The problem I see is related to the War Dec, corporation, and POS systems. All of those need real iterations to make them functional. So, yes you should be able to claim a POS or POCO location using a War Dec. Making high sec industry more convoluted does not seem like the proper solution. your proposal that we ought not improve things until there is a complete fix is dumb and wrong by effectively charging 1/3rd a plex for a (weak) wardec immunity, and charging 2 1/3rds plex per month for complete wardec immunity, we significantly penalize the cowardly through an easy-to-implement system that dramatically improves wardecs without requiring massive change
You are making a strawman argument by pretending I want a "complete fix." I simply identified the systems where the problem actually exists and noted their sad state.
I can propose a simple alternative fix. Make it so that anyone who places a POCO or POS in a location vacated by a waring party would immediately become subject to the war. You cannot sneak a "neutral" third party in to reclaim a location since the war could be directed at control of that space location. Note now we are using war decs to control space in high sec. |
Beaver Retriever
Reality Sequence
207
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:46:00 -
[292] - Quote
Death Ryder wrote:my question to CCP Ytterbium is this....
ARE YOU A FREAKING IDIOT...
your little improvements will turn high sec into a war zone and bring production across eve to a standstill in no time what so ever as the greifer CCP so fondly coddle up to begin destroying pos's left right and center in a damn orgy of wankerness... hahahahahahahaha
ok bro
anyway thanks for confirming this is a good change. |
Victor Dathar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:48:00 -
[293] - Quote
Ok * click * guys, let me just fin * click * ish putting this * click * jobs in then I will com * click * ment. ^^^ lol that post is so bad you should get back 2 GBS m8 o7 |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5576
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:49:00 -
[294] - Quote
Enteron Anabente wrote:Enteron Anabente wrote:I would encourage you to reconsider the copy times change on T2 BPOs. Making copy times shorter than build times on those BPOs is de facto making them even better money printers than (some of them, at least) already are--if a T2 BPO owner used to be able to manufacture 10 items per day, now he will be able to manufacture 12 per day at essentially the same unit cost (yes, I just made those numbers up). This pushes small-scale T2 producers who rely on invention out of business, since the supply from the cheaper T2 BPOs will be increasing.
TL;DR: making copying times shorter than production times for T2 BPOs will concentrate more wealth in the hands of already-wealthy people and hurt small-scale industrialists. Please don't do it. Can I at least get acknowledgement that a dev saw this, please? I think you VASTLY over rate the wealth generated from a T2 BPO. 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. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6902
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:52:00 -
[295] - Quote
Kadl wrote: I can propose a simple alternative fix. Make it so that anyone who places a POCO or POS in a location vacated by a waring party would immediately become subject to the war. You cannot sneak a "neutral" third party in to reclaim a location since the war could be directed at control of that space location. Note now we are using war decs to control space in high sec.
that is not simple whatsoever and would certainly require massively reworking a lot of code
it is a more elegant fix yes but it is much less likely to be implemented Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
626
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:52:00 -
[296] - Quote
Death Ryder wrote:your little improvements will turn high sec into a war zone and bring production across eve to a standstill in no time what so ever as the greifer CCP so fondly coddle up to begin destroying pos's left right and center in a damn orgy of wankerness...
I cannot think of anything that will invigorate the hisec player-base more than an orgy of wankerness.
Coming soon... |
Sturmwolke
543
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:54:00 -
[297] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:As such, all materials currently listed as Extra Materials will become regular materials instead
What's the scope for the removal of Extra Materials? All T1, T2 blueprints? If this affects T2 BPO, you do realize that this gives the edge back to the BPO holders vs inventions in terms of materials savings.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
We are aware of the significance of this change and do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner, but we do feel it to be a good trade-off for smaller blueprints.
This is a d_ick move tbh. Focus on the process. It makes research and the copy industry much more tedious as you have to keep moving your BPOs in/out of the station. Scale that to hundreds of different BPOs/BPCs and several POSes, it becomes a nightmare. Instead of improving, you're devolving it into something far worse. This is an inane change, imo.
For capital production, copy process for things like ship packs or components copy will be made difficult for small/medium enterprises that run on small or medium POSes. You are effectively asking them to commit billions into a target. With the wardec mechanics giving less than 24 hrs to react, EVE becomes your second work place. You're changing the scenery from "casual" to logging everyday and checking for wardecks. God forbid if you have a RL situation which prevents you from taking the necessary actions. This move will definitely thin out the semi-casual industrialists. So you're happy kicking out the casual players?
And what exactly do you mean by "do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner"? |
Heavy Met4l Queen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:54:00 -
[298] - Quote
I like this thread. This is a good thread. Who cares about the pawns of war while the kings yet reign |
Enteron Anabente
Provisional Provisions
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:54:00 -
[299] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Enteron Anabente wrote:Enteron Anabente wrote:I would encourage you to reconsider the copy times change on T2 BPOs. Making copy times shorter than build times on those BPOs is de facto making them even better money printers than (some of them, at least) already are--if a T2 BPO owner used to be able to manufacture 10 items per day, now he will be able to manufacture 12 per day at essentially the same unit cost (yes, I just made those numbers up). This pushes small-scale T2 producers who rely on invention out of business, since the supply from the cheaper T2 BPOs will be increasing.
TL;DR: making copying times shorter than production times for T2 BPOs will concentrate more wealth in the hands of already-wealthy people and hurt small-scale industrialists. Please don't do it. Can I at least get acknowledgement that a dev saw this, please? I think you VASTLY over rate the wealth generated from a T2 BPO.
I've done the calculations myself and decided not to buy any T2 BPOs anytime soon, so I'm well aware what the income from owning one is. I'm still opposed to making them more profitable and pushing out people doing invention. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3845
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:56:00 -
[300] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Entity wrote: Risk free? What? Is your brain turned off or something?
- The pos alone is worth 8 billion+ (all faction stuff) - I stand to lose a month worth of product to the tune of 20 billion if someone decides to blow it up.
I'm fine with -that- risk, but having to literally put ALL my eggs in that one easy to pop basket is completely unacceptable.
right which is why you will have to move to a station, increasing your cost and lowering your reward in exchange for the perfect safety you apparently can't do without
And if you have 30b in potential loot, it is worth your time to hire a merc corp (or five) to protect your besieged POS.
This is win, win. |
|
Khoul Ay'd
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
175
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:56:00 -
[301] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.
30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers. Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS. No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.
That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.
I wonder what the logic is behind this.
Additional mini-professions killed:
- corp/faction standings boosters (this means mission runners) - corp creation services - research corps (indy fee for service) - moon holding/pos planting
++ Where are all of the ice products coming from to feed all of the coming 0.8 - 1.0 poses that will go up. CCP, you do remember that you nerfed ice mining for the small-time operators a few expansions ago, right? The things we do today we must live with forever.... Think about it |
Knug LiDi
Quafe Commandos The Obsidian Front
71
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:57:00 -
[302] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Knug LiDi wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets? The new UI will show you the accurate price before you actually install the job. That's nice - BUT - I want to know this cost BEFORE I transport materials to a particular station. I.e. the cost amount need to be reflected in the information about that station. And, of course, it is dynamic. This is necessary. Trial and error trying to find cheap manufacturing while carrying materials is stupid. If the rate is dynamic, it needs to be on the equivalent of a market, so players have the intel to decide how far/how much. Doing this while carrying good is idiotic. Flying to 50 stations to determine a value that may change before I get back is wrong. Let me view the local 'market' for manufacturing just like a can examine the market for ore. Then I will make market decisions You will be able to request a quote from a station before a) going there b) moving materials and even c) purchasing the blueprint.
Singular quote system will be very slow. Can we not have a region-wide response to the same query? These values should be calculated (daily?) and stored for recall. This could be similar to the contract market. Give me a table of choices ! Just like shopping for mission agents.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms
without falling into her hands |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:57:00 -
[303] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:I'm sure my friend who runs a R&D business will consider leaving since it is his primary income and now it's not a thing anymore. I'm not going anywhere But his primary income source is still a thing. So far, contrary to all the doomsaying, the only profession that gets a slight kick in the nuts is corp-with-POS-standings creators. vOv
So you're saying when you can install essentially limitless ME/PE jobs just by travelling there will still be demand for people who research for you?
Currently the R&D industry is
1. We want research done 2. We don't want to have to wait for station slots 3. We will pay you for this research.
So now station slots are abundant so he won't get paid to do people's research. The end. Even then, a premium on that is that finding a POS spot that is desirable is difficult. No longer. They'll either be so abundant because you can anchor anywhere or the larger alliances such as Red Vs Blue will do a customs office on moons as well. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Sigras
Conglomo
729
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:57:00 -
[304] - Quote
Can we please have additional skills added to industry such as this suggestion
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4432508
It seems strange that I can train to fly ships for years, but if I want to put training time into industry I'm done in a month. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:58:00 -
[305] - Quote
Thead Enco wrote:Seriousrly who in their right mind puts billons worth of BPO's at a ******* POS? and with the standings change to anchoring people have been crying for a change since forever, Now CCP makes is easier so you dont have to rescue "The Damsel" 1,000,000th time and people stll *****?
If you were running missions for the every 16th mission "story line" for faction standing, then you were doing faction standing ALL wrong. You can have 7.0-8.0 in about a week doing tutorials, SoE, tags and COSMOS.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
296
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:58:00 -
[306] - Quote
Khoul Ay'd wrote: CCP, you do remember that you never ice mining for the email operators a few expansions ago, right?
You wanna try that sentence again?
Ice prices will go up. So will the cost of things associated with it. This is not a bad thing. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
72
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:59:00 -
[307] - Quote
Enteron Anabente wrote: I've done the calculations myself and decided not to buy any T2 BPOs anytime soon, so I'm well aware what the income from owning one is. I'm still opposed to making them more profitable and pushing out people doing invention.
At the moment, almost no t2 ships make any profit from invention, recently I saw someone on the industry forums come back to the game who was asking how much their Vulture BPO was worth... |
DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
361
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:59:00 -
[308] - Quote
Nathan Natinde wrote:I have a large POS, only one other guy has access, (and then only because I know him in RL because 'EVE') I already have billions in assembly arrays and labs at risk
The only thing that makes my industry experience bearable is that I can keep HUNDREDS of (Non stackable) T2 BPC's, Ship / Module / Component BPO's in ONE corp hanger in a station and set the jobs going on multiple characters from there. (Maxed out builder gets a whole 11 slots of each and you do not get EVE rich making T2 on one character))
So now I have to split all the blueprints up as well, have all my characters log in out at the POS and memorize which pesky array or lab I left each in. Or swallow hefty fees that apparently will make losses.
All this would be fine if I made one or 2 items, but to make ISK in EVE without a T2 BPO you should to be flexible and ready to make practically any item. I don't mind the risks, or particularly having to make more things at the POS (as long as the awful drawbacks on T2 ship arrays go away) but honestly I don't need industry to be more complicated for Blueprints.
did you miss this line?
"Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials."
You just need to store them at the pos, you don;t need to be at the pos, you cna keep them in one hanger that only you and your alts have access too.. so not much really changed. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
577
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:59:00 -
[309] - Quote
Knug LiDi wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Knug LiDi wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets? The new UI will show you the accurate price before you actually install the job. That's nice - BUT - I want to know this cost BEFORE I transport materials to a particular station. I.e. the cost amount need to be reflected in the information about that station. And, of course, it is dynamic. This is necessary. Trial and error trying to find cheap manufacturing while carrying materials is stupid. If the rate is dynamic, it needs to be on the equivalent of a market, so players have the intel to decide how far/how much. Doing this while carrying good is idiotic. Flying to 50 stations to determine a value that may change before I get back is wrong. Let me view the local 'market' for manufacturing just like a can examine the market for ore. Then I will make market decisions You will be able to request a quote from a station before a) going there b) moving materials and even c) purchasing the blueprint. Singular quote system will be very slow. Can we not have a region-wide response to the same query? These values should be calculated (daily?) and stored for recall. This could be similar to the contract market. Give me a table of choices ! Just like shopping for mission agents.
You will also get a list of locations you can install the job in the region with a way to compare their relative pricing. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1830
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:59:00 -
[310] - Quote
this is an aspect of the game i have no real experiance with but i must say good job guys!!!
I am sure my firends who do make stuff will be overjoyed! There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
|
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
649
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:00:00 -
[311] - Quote
Pressing the "start job" button on the machine doesn't require as much skill as flying a spaceship by yourself :P GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? |
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight Initiative Associates
30
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:00:00 -
[312] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:As such, all materials currently listed as Extra Materials will become regular materials instead What's the scope for the removal of Extra Materials? All T1, T2 blueprints? If this affects T2 BPO, you do realize that this gives the edge back to the BPO holders vs inventions in terms of materials savings. CCP Ytterbium wrote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
We are aware of the significance of this change and do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner, but we do feel it to be a good trade-off for smaller blueprints. This is a d_ick move tbh. Focus on the process. It makes research and the copy industry much more tedious as you have to keep moving your BPOs in/out of the station. Scale that to hundreds of different BPOs/BPCs and several POSes, it becomes a nightmare. Instead of improving, you're devolving it into something far worse. This is an inane change, imo. For capital production, copy process for things like ship packs or components copy will be made difficult for small/medium enterprises that run on small or medium POSes. You are effectively asking them to commit billions into a target. With the wardec mechanics giving less than 24 hrs to react, EVE becomes your second work place. You're changing the scenery from "casual" to logging everyday and checking for wardecks. God forbid if you have a RL situation which prevents you from taking the necessary actions. This move will definitely thin out the semi-casual industrialists. So you're happy kicking out the casual players? And what exactly do you mean by "do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner"?
Didn't you know that CCP has decided to remove all casual playing elements from Eve? They only expect the complete and total dedication of our lives... |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2640
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:00:00 -
[313] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:We've been dying to talk about these changes and can't wait for your feedback.
You are kidding right? Feedback? This stuff is set in reinforced concrete. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:00:00 -
[314] - Quote
Khoul Ay'd wrote:
++ Where are all of the ice products coming from to feed all of the coming 0.8 - 1.0 poses that will go up. CCP, you do remember that you nerfed ice mining for the email operators a few expansions ago, right?
Dude, you're fine. Do what you did to customs offices. Go around and take all the moons because there's no restriction on doing so and then sell them. They just removed the only thing stopping overwhelming numbers from owning every highsec moon. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
312
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:01:00 -
[315] - Quote
Removal of all Extra materials: Doesn't this mean that Tech 2 ships at ME -6, -5, -4 (Augmentation, Attainment and no decryptor) will use 2 T1 hulls, since it being an Extra material was what kept it at 1?
So a Sin would use 2 Dominix hulls with those three invention choices.
At ME -3 and above it rounds back down to 1 T1 hull. -- |
Saeth Thara
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:02:00 -
[316] - Quote
I also feel the change to require the BPO to be in the POS is a bad idea, and would rather it remained in its current form (as it's not really broken as far as I can see). At the moment my pos, including mods, contents of labs etc is worth around 3B. This amount of isk is not insignificant to me, but would be a loss I could bear. After this change if I just wanted to keep my current production going I would need to have almost 27B at the POS, which is not something I could afford to risk losing.
The proposed improvement to the labs would have to be huge in my eyes to balance out the extra leg work and risk involved in moving a large number of bpos to the pos .
In addition I can't always get online everyday and the same is true of many of the people I play with, and as such if my corp was war dec'd it would be entirely possible for the pos to be shot down before anyone got online to empty it out. In light of the fact you are giving people a much bigger reason to attack a pos are you planning to make any changes to reinforce mechanics and/or the attributes of pos in order to help balance the risk to reward?
If you really are hell bent on making changes to this particular mechanic are there any other options you might consider? Perhaps adding a pos mod that allows the bpo to remain in a station GÇô which would then mean less fitting for labs? Or adding a scaling system whereby the closer to the pos the bpo is the faster it researches (so max speed if its in the pos, then getting slower if in the same system but in a station/different pos)?
Aside from this most of the other changes look interesting and make sense to me, but I would also be interested, as others are, to hear what if any plans you have for standings and the benefits derived from them, as you are removing one of the main reasons people have worked on them in the past. |
Knug LiDi
Quafe Commandos The Obsidian Front
71
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:03:00 -
[317] - Quote
Quote:
You will be able to request a quote from a station before a) going there b) moving materials and even c) purchasing the blueprint.
Singular quote system will be very slow. Can we not have a region-wide response to the same query? These values should be calculated (daily?) and stored for recall. This could be similar to the contract market. Give me a table of choices ! Just like shopping for mission agents.[/quote]
You will also get a list of locations you can install the job in the region with a way to compare their relative pricing.[/quote]
So basically, we can get a relative cost comparison in a region, but for accurate information a singular quote is needed. Well, its not ideal, but at least there is some comparative information.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms
without falling into her hands |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20767
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:03:00 -
[318] - Quote
Khoul Ay'd wrote:Additional mini-professions killed:
- corp/faction standings boosters (mission runners) - corp creation services - research corps (indy fee for service) - moon holding/pos planting Three of those are the same and have already been mentioned in Imiarr's post. The fourth is still viable albeit in a different form.
Imiarr Timshae wrote:So you're saying when you can install essentially limitless ME/PE jobs just by travelling there will still be demand for people who research for you?
Currently the R&D industry is
1. We want research done 2. We don't want to have to wait for station slots 3. We will pay you for this research. This will change to: 1. We want research done 2. We don't want to pay the exorbitant fee or hunt around for cheap systems. 3. We will pay you for this research at a less exorbitant fee.
Oh, and ye olde business of just selling researched blueprints GÇö especially given all the complaints you're seeing that people don't want to risk moving their BPOs around. 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20767
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:05:00 -
[319] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:At the moment, almost no t2 ships make any profit from invention, recently I saw someone on the industry forums come back to the game who was asking how much their Vulture BPO was worth... Interesting. It doesn't match my experience of making good profits from inventing T2 ships, but stillGǪ 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3845
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:05:00 -
[320] - Quote
Will you be adjusting the number of "RAM" we currently have.
I have 1000+ RAM that I regularly use for production. This is like 75+m isk worth of modules that will become 1/100th (75k) of the utility / value after the change. Should I plan to use up all my RAM and Db prior to the summer release, or will you adjust my hangar so 1000 RAM becomes the 100,000 RAM, maintaining my equivalent value and utility?
Overall, I think these changes are beautiful. I can't wait to see the UI changes and the other dev blogs to come. |
|
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight Initiative Associates
32
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:05:00 -
[321] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Khoul Ay'd wrote:
++ Where are all of the ice products coming from to feed all of the coming 0.8 - 1.0 poses that will go up. CCP, you do remember that you nerfed ice mining for the email operators a few expansions ago, right?
Dude, you're fine. Do what you did to customs offices. Go around and take all the moons because there's no restriction on doing so and then sell them. They just removed the only thing stopping overwhelming numbers from owning every highsec moon.
Luckily owning moons in highsec will be completely worthless now... |
Khoul Ay'd
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
175
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:05:00 -
[322] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Khoul Ay'd wrote:
++ Where are all of the ice products coming from to feed all of the coming 0.8 - 1.0 poses that will go up. CCP, you do remember that you nerfed ice mining for the email operators a few expansions ago, right?
Dude, you're fine. Do what you did to customs offices. Go around and take all the moons because there's no restriction on doing so and then sell them. They just removed the only thing stopping overwhelming numbers from owning every highsec moon.
Do you think RvBers don't have Indy alts untied to their main? Where do you think the ships that make pretty 'splosions come from? The things we do today we must live with forever.... Think about it |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
72
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:06:00 -
[323] - Quote
Ydnari wrote:Removal of all Extra materials: Doesn't this mean that Tech 2 ships at ME -6, -5, -4 (Augmentation, Attainment and no decryptor) will use 2 T1 hulls, since it being an Extra material was what kept it at 1?
So a Sin would use 2 Dominix hulls with those three invention choices.
At ME -3 and above it rounds back down to 1 T1 hull.
No, because ME is based on a %. You can not reduce the ME enough to run into this problem. Besides the fact that any decrypter that reduces ME is literally useless on any ship invention as it completely removes any profit all together. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6912
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:06:00 -
[324] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Khoul Ay'd wrote:
++ Where are all of the ice products coming from to feed all of the coming 0.8 - 1.0 poses that will go up. CCP, you do remember that you nerfed ice mining for the email operators a few expansions ago, right?
Dude, you're fine. Do what you did to customs offices. Go around and take all the moons because there's no restriction on doing so and then sell them. They just removed the only thing stopping overwhelming numbers from owning every highsec moon. what the **** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Nyjil Lizaru
Aideron Robotics
24
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:07:00 -
[325] - Quote
This quote:
Callic Veratar wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again. YOU won't. Others will. They will lose high ME/PE BPOs.
And this one:
Callic Veratar wrote:
So pull down your POS and substitute the fuel cost for the station fees. This isn't as hard as you're trying to make it.
Put them together and they make me wonder if we won't see fewer POSes (at least in high- and low-sec) as people just do all their work in stations (and yes, I know there will be people who have to move to a new system as well since not every system has the proper type of slot). But doesn't infinite slots in each station means fewer uses for POSes? We'll all consolidate to those systems that have the slots we need, each of us setting up shop at a distance from a trade hub that allows for a ratio of fee-vs-shipping-time that we are comfortable with.
(Again, these thoughts are based on a high-and low-sec bias, I have no idea how this might change things in 0.0) |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:08:00 -
[326] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
This will change to: 1. We want research done 2. We don't want to pay the exorbitant fee or hunt around for cheap systems. 3. We will pay you for this research at a less exorbitant fee.
Oh, and ye olde business of just selling researched blueprints GÇö especially given all the complaints you're seeing that people don't want to risk moving their BPOs around.
You've not seen me complain about the risk because I'm right there with CCP on risk = reward. I have no issue with it.
But I very very strongly doubt that anyone will want to pay anyone else when they can remotely see that a station 10j away is offering research dirt cheap. Unless they make highsec station ME/PE slots so expensive that 100m/month is worthwhile for 12 ME slots (1 DG small tower, 3x Labs) they will simply have killed it. It was all about rarity of slots. The hassle of finding a service provider, paying them, trusting them with your BPO's, relying on their good practice/timely delivery is nothing compared to shuttle to nearest cheap station > install > forget about them. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Tra'con Han
The reality disfunction
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:08:00 -
[327] - Quote
Sorry, but I think the removal of the standings to anchor a pos is an absolute disgrace.
Lets put Eve on easy because people are too lazy to commit to a project! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20767
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:08:00 -
[328] - Quote
Ydnari wrote:Removal of all Extra materials: Doesn't this mean that Tech 2 ships at ME -6, -5, -4 (Augmentation, Attainment and no decryptor) will use 2 T1 hulls, since it being an Extra material was what kept it at 1?
So a Sin would use 2 Dominix hulls with those three invention choices.
At ME -3 and above it rounds back down to 1 T1 hull. I have a sneaking suspicion that what they mean is that there will no longer be GÇ£extra materialsGÇ¥ for materials that are already part of the base process. In other words, you won't have BPs that require X tritanium as materials, and an additional Y tritanium as extra materials. The mechanic of having some stuff absolutely and unquestionably lost, but also regulated at immovable levels, is too handy to lose completely.
Imiarr Timshae wrote:You've not seen me complain about the risk because I'm right there with CCP on risk = reward. I have no issue with it. Sure, but others are. My point is that R&D:ers now have the opportunity to make bank from that risk perception.
Adellle Nadair wrote:Luckily owning moons in highsec will be completely worthless now... Not really, no. The ability to maintain a static base of operations, the ability to adjust your own fees and surcharges, the ability to reprocess for free (and with higher efficiency). There's plenty of value in owning one. 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. |
Etara Silverblade
Grey Ghost Grim
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:08:00 -
[329] - Quote
POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system?
You are going to force some of us to find new jobs in eve as raising standings for corps will no longer be of any use. |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:10:00 -
[330] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: what the **** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon
**** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
300
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:11:00 -
[331] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Weaselior wrote: what the **** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon
**** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in Unfortunately, the nature of POS roles makes that infeasible. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6912
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:11:00 -
[332] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Weaselior wrote: what the **** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon
**** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in then watch as all of them get blown up left and right because an offline small is trivial to afk kill
we'd be trolling ourselves more than anyone else Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Kadeshians
47
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:12:00 -
[333] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Aliventi wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes.
So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs?
Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment.
I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2641
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:12:00 -
[334] - Quote
Entity wrote:Weaselior wrote:Entity wrote:So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?
I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated eight years was 7.9 too long Risk free? What? Is your brain turned off or something? - The pos alone is worth 8 billion+ (all faction stuff) - I stand to lose a month worth of product to the tune of 20 billion if someone decides to blow it up. I'm fine with -that- risk, but having to literally put ALL my eggs in that one easy to pop basket is completely unacceptable.
Let's see who CCP listens to:
1. One of the most famous, long term players in the game, who knows a thing or 2, or a million, about Eve industry. 2. A member of a group dedicated to ruining gameplay for as many as possible, and who is openly gloating over the changes.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:12:00 -
[335] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kadl wrote: I can propose a simple alternative fix. Make it so that anyone who places a POCO or POS in a location vacated by a waring party would immediately become subject to the war. You cannot sneak a "neutral" third party in to reclaim a location since the war could be directed at control of that space location. Note now we are using war decs to control space in high sec.
that is not simple whatsoever and would certainly require massively reworking a lot of code it is a more elegant fix yes but it is much less likely to be implemented
It might require a bit more work on the code, but where is your evidence that it would be a massive rework?
What would they need to touch? 1) Each POS/POCO location would need an added bit of hidden data noting which corporation last used it last and the date. 2) When placing a POS/POCO a check is needed on the corporation which last used the location. War Dec history would then need to be cross referenced to identify any wars the new POS/POCO owner might be stepping into. Any wars would require a warning popup asking if the new owner wishes to accept the risk of war. If they accept the risk then the wars are added to the new corporation in the exact same state.
Any messy War Dec code can be avoided. It is now a normal war.
Hopefully a quick check can be added to the initial POS/POCO deployment code. It should return a simple yes/no to deploying, and avoid any other interactions. This could have problems, but seems possible unless you have more detailed knowledge of the code. |
Myxx
699
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:13:00 -
[336] - Quote
A lot of people in this thread either don't care, or are deliberately ignorant or even perhaps hostile to the industry side of EVE.
Sad.
Ohwell. As far as I'm concerned, there are three plans in place. Depending on how the scaling cost turns out, they'll be used to make the entire system CCP is setting up pointless. It has been boiled down to potentially a series of small annoyances.
Thanks for stabbing industiry in the back, though. |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:13:00 -
[337] - Quote
Tra'con Han wrote:Sorry, but I think the removal of the standings to anchor a pos is an absolute disgrace.
Lets put Eve on easy because people are too lazy to commit to a project!
And this, to a degree, is also true.
The barrier to entry removal of say, scanning, was great. Scanning was confusing and difficult. My finds dropped in value because more people were finding them, I didn't mind. The content was engaging and fun and should have been simple since it's in the tutorial anyway.
There is something satisfying about getting an empire to like you enough that you can get a piece of their real estate. It made sense, canonically. It acted as a barrier to entry so you had to either work hard to get the required standing or you had to pay someone. That's pretty much how the free market works.
Without the barrier to entry it'll just be a blobfest just like customs offices, plus it makes no sense. Someone who is literally kill on sight by Gallente can anchor a control tower in gallente prime if they are spry enough to avoid the police. That'll be interesting for faction warfare. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:15:00 -
[338] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:Weaselior wrote: what the **** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon
**** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in then watch as all of them get blown up left and right because an offline small is trivial to afk kill we'd be trolling ourselves more than anyone else
And I referred to Red and Blue in my post you quoted and not goon because you guys are nullsec and have null interested. RVB are constantly looking for combat in highsec. Defending control towers - like customs offices - would be right up their street. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Kithran
94
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:16:00 -
[339] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Ydnari wrote:Removal of all Extra materials: Doesn't this mean that Tech 2 ships at ME -6, -5, -4 (Augmentation, Attainment and no decryptor) will use 2 T1 hulls, since it being an Extra material was what kept it at 1?
So a Sin would use 2 Dominix hulls with those three invention choices.
At ME -3 and above it rounds back down to 1 T1 hull. No, because ME is based on a %. You can not reduce the ME enough to run into this problem. Besides the fact that any decrypter that reduces ME is literally useless on any ship invention as it completely removes any profit all together.
ME 0 = 10% waste ME 1 = 5% waste ME 2 = 2.5% waste etc
ME -1 = 20% waste ME -2 = 30% waste ME -3 = 40% waste ME -4 = 50% waste ME -5 = 60% waste ME -6 = 70% waste
If at 0 waste you would use 1 of something at ME -4 you will in theory be using 1.5 rounding to 2 |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
329
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:16:00 -
[340] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Let's see who CCP listens to:
1. One of the most famous, long term players in the game, who knows a thing or 2, or a million, about Eve industry. 2. A member of a group dedicated to ruining gameplay for as many as possible, and who is openly gloating over the changes.
that dude, whoever he is, lost a lot of credibility when he admitted he can only turn over 20b a month on 2.5t This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Kadar Yassavi
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:16:00 -
[341] - Quote
- Holy ****!
- HOLY ****!!!
- I'm very concerned about the POS changes. Will it still be benificial to have a nice highsec POS over just traveling 2 or 3 more jumps to a station where the installation costs are reasonable enough? On the other hand, will it be so extremely benificial that the chances of me as a solo player not getting my nice highsec POS blown up after the expansion are above 99%? I understand that this is an MMO and obviously there should be a certain drive to team up with others (to defend a nice highsec POS for example), but I know there are a lot of solo industrialists out there just like me.
- You are killing the side profession of offering corporation standings boost/creation, maybe others as well, don't know atm. Will there be new incentives/rewards to grind faction standings to high numbers?
- Wow, that UI and the things it suggests for the future dev blogs.
- Please release the other dev blogs asap (like tomorrow).
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2643
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:17:00 -
[342] - Quote
Etara Silverblade wrote:POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system?
You are going to force some of us to find new jobs in eve as raising standings for corps will no longer be of any use.
Didn't you know? Your game play is not sanctioned in this "wide-open sandbox".
The best part:
Griefer roups can now fire up as many small POS's as they like, not fuel them, effectively deadzoning as many moons or entire systems they like, because standings are done. Then, the only way to get a POS up will be to wardec them, which is what they wanted all along.
New method of griefing. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Myxx
701
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:17:00 -
[343] - Quote
Chanina wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Aliventi wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes. So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs? Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment. I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality.
I think you misunderstand what we'll probably end up doing with T2 BPOs some of us have. Selling copies will be for the slightly cheaper stuff (ie, guns and ammo) but I don't anticipate that ship BPOs will have many copies sold. Some might, maybe, but there are other better uses that preserve the status quo as it is. That status quo is quite profitable atm. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20768
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:17:00 -
[344] - Quote
Chanina wrote:I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one.
Etara Silverblade wrote:POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system? Come to think of it, what happens if a -10 Gallente standings corp puts up a tower in Gallente space?
Myxx wrote:Thanks for stabbing industiry in the back, though. If this counts as stabbing someone in the back, I'm going to send CCP a weekly subscription of back-stabbing daggers, because I want more. 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. |
Myxx
701
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:20:00 -
[345] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Chanina wrote:I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one. Etara Silverblade wrote:POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system? Come to think of it, what happens if a -10 Gallente standings corp puts up a tower in Gallente space? Myxx wrote:Thanks for stabbing industiry in the back, though. If this counts as stabbing someone in the back, I'm going to send CCP a weekly subscription of back-stabbing daggers, because I want more.
I don't think you're looking at the larger picture, but okay... |
samualvimes
Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders
213
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:20:00 -
[346] - Quote
These look like the beginning of something great! Good job CCP
Thank God Dinsdale turned up. I was beginning to think he was ill! If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming. |
Cassandra Kazan
Padded Helmets
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:21:00 -
[347] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Entity wrote:Weaselior wrote:Entity wrote:So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?
I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated eight years was 7.9 too long Risk free? What? Is your brain turned off or something? - The pos alone is worth 8 billion+ (all faction stuff) - I stand to lose a month worth of product to the tune of 20 billion if someone decides to blow it up. I'm fine with -that- risk, but having to literally put ALL my eggs in that one easy to pop basket is completely unacceptable. Let's see who CCP listens to: 1. One of the most famous, long term players in the game, who knows a thing or 2, or a million, about Eve industry. 2. A member of a group dedicated to ruining gameplay for as many as possible, and who is openly gloating over the changes.
Perhaps they could consider evaluating the arguments of both people on the merits. Or would that be too much to ask? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3845
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:21:00 -
[348] - Quote
Etara Silverblade wrote:POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system?
You are going to force some of us to find new jobs in eve as raising standings for corps will no longer be of any use.
Maybe... or maybe standings will become important in a different way. It could be the costs you pay at a station are modified by you and your corps standings with the NPC owners.
This, however, would make the temporary standings boosts you provide much less useful, as long term standings boosts become more important.
Then again, maybe standings with NPC corps will cease to be important. That's not entirely a bad thing. |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:22:00 -
[349] - Quote
Chanina wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Aliventi wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes. So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs? Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment.
This 100x over! If you want to eliminate invention just come out and say it. When shall we expect Tech 2 BPOs to be seeded on the market?
|
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:23:00 -
[350] - Quote
Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
Worst change in this feature.
another Super capital nerf... thanks CCP.... with this change if you want to produce a supercapital ship you know have to risk all of your assets whcih can be hundreds of billions of isk. or spend months copying your blueprints to build 1 ship...
this has now given eve online 50% of the work for Supercap Proliferation... this changes coupled with the change to compression... expect price increases of 50%-100% of current hull values. of supercarriers and titans if they are produced at all...
good job CCP make things better for pvpers which i have no objection to but making builders scared to build now....
you should rethink this part of the changes... |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3845
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:23:00 -
[351] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Weaselior wrote: what the **** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon
**** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in
Hopefully they implement a mechanic to more easily remove offlined towers. If those large alliances need to fuel those POSes, holding a gajillion moons is both tedious and expensive.
|
Myxx
701
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:25:00 -
[352] - Quote
Rapscallion Jones wrote:Chanina wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Aliventi wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes. So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs? Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment. This 100x over! If you want to eliminate invention just come out and say it. When shall we expect Tech 2 BPOs to be seeded on the market? You really need to re-examine this. T2 BPO copies aren't going to get sold for the most part. They'll be used for production, alts will be made to copy in stations in total safety. We'll have to log in slightly more often, but we can still spread our production chain out if need be. This is what I'm pretty sure CCP is expecting. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3845
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:25:00 -
[353] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:Weaselior wrote: what the **** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon
**** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in then watch as all of them get blown up left and right because an offline small is trivial to afk kill we'd be trolling ourselves more than anyone else
This is a good point...If a single alliance held a ton of moon locations with offline POS's, one wardec and that alliance is going to lose a butload POS's that they can't hope to adequately defend.
|
Cassandra Kazan
Padded Helmets
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:26:00 -
[354] - Quote
I think it is fair to say that the faction standings system is a piece of EVE that has not been taken seriously as a gameplay component for nearly 10 years.
Standings are something that people grind out when it is needful, or which they pay other people to maintain for them. In light of how neglected the system is and how little compelling gameplay it provides, can anyone really argue that it should remain linked to key highsec gameplay elements?
I don't think so. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
312
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:26:00 -
[355] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Ydnari wrote:Removal of all Extra materials: Doesn't this mean that Tech 2 ships at ME -6, -5, -4 (Augmentation, Attainment and no decryptor) will use 2 T1 hulls, since it being an Extra material was what kept it at 1?
So a Sin would use 2 Dominix hulls with those three invention choices.
At ME -3 and above it rounds back down to 1 T1 hull. No, because ME is based on a %. You can not reduce the ME enough to run into this problem.
That's not how negative ME works. On a standard 10% base waste blueprint at ME-4 you get 50% waste, which rounds a single unit up to two.
http://wiki.eve-id.net/Equations
Quote:Besides the fact that any decrypter that reduces ME is literally useless on any ship invention as it completely removes any profit all together.
It'll also apply when you don't use a decryptor, and that's not the point of my question anyway.
The same question also applies to modules, where currently the ME-5 and ME-6 decryptors can produce some of the best ISK per hour, because of the runs bonuses; they'll start using 2 base modules too.
The question is whether this has been anticipated or not, since only the extras on T1 ships that were added to avoid reprocessing were mentioned in the blog. -- |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20769
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:26:00 -
[356] - Quote
Myxx wrote:I don't think you're looking at the larger picture, but okay... I'm looking at how it will benefit me as an industrialist; how it will benefit the dynamics of space utilisation; how it will benefit risk-taking; how it benefits the activity economy. Pretty much all of it is good.
The only annoyance so far is a bit of logistical hassle, but that one has more to do with appalling POS mechanics than anything, and the main worry there is related to information that won't be released until a later devblog. 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. |
BugraT WarheaD
98
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:26:00 -
[357] - Quote
Nice blog Ytterbium, you're way easier to read than to hear :D
[french]Saloperie d'accent fran+ºais quoi, non mais c'est un monde +ºa ma bonne dame, m+¬me moi j'y arrive pas ![/french]
Great changes to come, hope the next blogs were as legendary as this one ! |
Powers Sa
1028
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:29:00 -
[358] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Will there be unavoidable manufacturing / research fees in 0.0 stations? Or are they going to get that for free like they get free repairs?
Grarr Dexx wrote:While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense. sov bills
I'm ok with repair bills if i get to incap services in 0.0 NPC stations. lol |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:29:00 -
[359] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Chanina wrote:I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one.
Slightly higher output for T2 BPOs => Slightly lower output for invention => Slightly lower profits for invention.
Your argument is that we should ignore the benefits reaped by T2 BPO owners because they are small. I think that is a move in the wrong direction, and should be avoided. I would like CCP to make a commitment to avoid improving the overall use of T2 BPO for their owners. I am uncertain whether the overall situation will improve for T2 BPO owners. For example, will they end up being required to place their T2 BPO in a POS in order to reach the old levels of production. |
Myxx
701
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:29:00 -
[360] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Myxx wrote:I don't think you're looking at the larger picture, but okay... I'm looking at how it will benefit me as an industrialist; how it will benefit the dynamics of space utilisation; how it will benefit risk-taking; how it benefits the activity economy. Pretty much all of it is good. The only annoyance so far is a bit of logistical hassle, but that one has more to do with appalling POS mechanics than anything, and the main worry there is related to information that won't be released until a later devblog.
I see. Then I misunderstood. We have different ideas as to what is good for the use of moons and starbases. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2644
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:30:00 -
[361] - Quote
Saeth Thara wrote:I also feel the change to require the BPO to be in the POS is a bad idea, and would rather it remained in its current form (as it's not really broken as far as I can see). At the moment my pos, including mods, contents of labs etc is worth around 3B. This amount of isk is not insignificant to me, but would be a loss I could bear. After this change if I just wanted to keep my current production going I would need to have almost 27B at the POS, which is not something I could afford to risk losing.
The proposed improvement to the labs would have to be huge in my eyes to balance out the extra leg work and risk involved in moving a large number of bpos to the pos .
In addition I can't always get online everyday and the same is true of many of the people I play with, and as such if my corp was war dec'd it would be entirely possible for the pos to be shot down before anyone got online to empty it out. In light of the fact you are giving people a much bigger reason to attack a pos are you planning to make any changes to reinforce mechanics and/or the attributes of pos in order to help balance the risk to reward?
If you really are hell bent on making changes to this particular mechanic are there any other options you might consider? Perhaps adding a pos mod that allows the bpo to remain in a station GÇô which would then mean less fitting for labs? Or adding a scaling system whereby the closer to the pos the bpo is the faster it researches (so max speed if its in the pos, then getting slower if in the same system but in a station/different pos)?
Aside from this most of the other changes look interesting and make sense to me, but I would also be interested, as others are, to hear what if any plans you have for standings and the benefits derived from them, as you are removing one of the main reasons people have worked on them in the past.
Casual players are not allowed to play Eve. Didn't you get the memo? They are directing anyone who has a real life and can't commit at least 2 hours a day every day to Eve to wait for Star Citizen to boot up.
I must admit, Mike Azariah has done another bang-up job defending the high sec casual player. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Jayem See
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
2578
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:30:00 -
[362] - Quote
That's going to be a bit of a game changer!
The link on the launcher page isn't working btw - just to let you know Aaaaaaand relax. |
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:32:00 -
[363] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Tippia wrote:Myxx wrote:I don't think you're looking at the larger picture, but okay... I'm looking at how it will benefit me as an industrialist; how it will benefit the dynamics of space utilisation; how it will benefit risk-taking; how it benefits the activity economy. Pretty much all of it is good. The only annoyance so far is a bit of logistical hassle, but that one has more to do with appalling POS mechanics than anything, and the main worry there is related to information that won't be released until a later devblog. I see. Then I misunderstood. We have different ideas as to what is good for the use of moons and starbases.
sorry using your quote here but tippia not all of it is good... this will utterly destroy the ability to make supers and titans. people will have to spend months of time copying BPOs to make these ships since they cannot be produced in a station or in high sec... so tell me how thats good for the economy. |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:35:00 -
[364] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Rapscallion Jones wrote:Chanina wrote:
So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs?
Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment.
This 100x over! If you want to eliminate invention just come out and say it. When shall we expect Tech 2 BPOs to be seeded on the market? You really need to re-examine this. T2 BPO copies aren't going to get sold for the most part. They'll be used for production, alts will be made to copy in stations in total safety. We'll have to log in slightly more often, but we can still spread our production chain out if need be. This is what I'm pretty sure CCP is expecting.
And meanwhile inventors wait until October or December to be competitive with your buff while they work out what to do next. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6923
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:35:00 -
[365] - Quote
theman428 wrote:sorry using your quote here but tippia not all of it is good... this will utterly destroy the ability to make supers and titans. people will have to spend months of time copying BPOs to make these ships since they cannot be produced in a station or in high sec... so tell me how thats good for the economy. yeah no
i make supers and titans and i am not at all complaining about these changes, because i spent the thirty seconds to puzzle out how I adjust given these new systems
if you can't figure it out you probably shouldn't be building supercaps in the first place Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:35:00 -
[366] - Quote
Additional thoughts on why forcing bpos to be moved to a pos is a terrible idea:
For the players who do industry who want to copy their expensive bpos in the safety of a station, the amount of busy work required is hugely increased. A central location where a player can install multiple types of jobs is no longer possible. The player will need to move the bpo to a different station in system, if possible, more likely several systems away. And if the player does any amount of actual industrial activity they will have to move many multiple bpos to many multiple different stations/systems to be able to run jobs that vary in length. To do industry requires using multiple characters, meaning each location will have to have a corp office to enable sharing of the bpos. And all of this amounts to a large addition to the busy work required to do industry. This change WILL INCREASE the amount of work and time needed to install any job.
The fancy new UI has no possibility of making reducing the busy work to the level it currently exists at or reduce the amount of clicks needed to install a job. While the actual installation of a job may be easier, now the bpo will need to be moved. Meaning it will have to be moved from the station hanger to the ship, the ship flown to the other station, possibly several jumps away, then moved to the station hanger/corp hanger and then the job is installed. The amount of clicking won't change any appreciable amount, only now it will take a lot longer to do!
|
Myxx
701
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:36:00 -
[367] - Quote
Rapscallion Jones wrote:Myxx wrote:Rapscallion Jones wrote:Chanina wrote:
So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs?
Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment.
This 100x over! If you want to eliminate invention just come out and say it. When shall we expect Tech 2 BPOs to be seeded on the market? You really need to re-examine this. T2 BPO copies aren't going to get sold for the most part. They'll be used for production, alts will be made to copy in stations in total safety. We'll have to log in slightly more often, but we can still spread our production chain out if need be. This is what I'm pretty sure CCP is expecting. And meanwhile inventors wait until October or December to be competitive with your buff while they work out what to do next. um... no. This is actually liable to be more annoying for me than it is you. |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
181
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:38:00 -
[368] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Casual players are not allowed to play Eve. Didn't you get the memo? They are directing anyone who has a real life and can't commit at least 2 hours a day every day to Eve to wait for Star Citizen to boot up.
I must admit, Mike Azariah has done another bang-up job defending the high sec casual player.
Eve's gameplay should require constant attention and not allow casual play. Current design philosophy (from what you've said).
Eve's skill training system requires barely any attention at all but completely restricts your ability to do practically everything gameplay-wise. Current skill training philosophy.
It's like living in crazyland. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:38:00 -
[369] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:theman428 wrote:sorry using your quote here but tippia not all of it is good... this will utterly destroy the ability to make supers and titans. people will have to spend months of time copying BPOs to make these ships since they cannot be produced in a station or in high sec... so tell me how thats good for the economy. yeah no i make supers and titans and i am not at all complaining about these changes, because i spent the thirty seconds to puzzle out how I adjust given these new systems if you can't figure it out you probably shouldn't be building supercaps in the first place
You are an edge case variant. And are in no way representative of the majority that this change effects. |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:40:00 -
[370] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Rapscallion Jones wrote:Myxx wrote:Rapscallion Jones wrote:Chanina wrote:
So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs?
Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment.
This 100x over! If you want to eliminate invention just come out and say it. When shall we expect Tech 2 BPOs to be seeded on the market? You really need to re-examine this. T2 BPO copies aren't going to get sold for the most part. They'll be used for production, alts will be made to copy in stations in total safety. We'll have to log in slightly more often, but we can still spread our production chain out if need be. This is what I'm pretty sure CCP is expecting. And meanwhile inventors wait until October or December to be competitive with your buff while they work out what to do next. um... no. This is actually liable to be more annoying for me than it is you.
You'll have to excuse me if I'm not sympathetic to your having to update your spreadsheets to reflect your new found profits.
|
|
i hatechosingnames
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:40:00 -
[371] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Knug LiDi wrote:
Singular quote system will be very slow. Can we not have a region-wide response to the same query? These values should be calculated (daily?) and stored for recall. This could be similar to the contract market. Give me a table of choices ! Just like shopping for mission agents.
You will also get a list of locations you can install the job in the region with a way to compare their relative pricing.
How long will these quotes be valid for? How often will popularity effect the price of the manufacturing slot?
If I see I have just enough isk to install a job 4 jumps, fly out there with everything I need to install the job to find popularity has pushed the price past what I can afford, I would be a little annoyed with the system. If the popularity tax is able to shift at any-time, will we be able to get these quotes prices valid for a set time? eg 60 minutes? |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
602
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:41:00 -
[372] - Quote
So many 'omg my BPO won't be safe in a station anymore!' tears :D What part of risk vs reward don't you people understand? You want safety? Enjoy copying your BPO to keep it safe.
Also I'm loving the indirect effect on the production of super caps this is going to have. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3845
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:42:00 -
[373] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Tippia wrote:Chanina wrote:I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one. Slightly higher output for T2 BPOs => Slightly lower output for invention => Slightly lower profits for invention. Your argument is that we should ignore the benefits reaped by T2 BPO owners because they are small. I think that is a move in the wrong direction, and should be avoided. I would like CCP to make a commitment to avoid improving the overall use of T2 BPO for their owners. I am uncertain whether the overall situation will improve for T2 BPO owners. For example, will they end up being required to place their T2 BPO in a POS in order to reach the old levels of production.
Before we get on the "OMG T2 BPO's must die" hype train, I think we should wait and see what other changes are in store for us.
In general, T2 BPO's are a good thing for this game. They only control a small market fraction for most items in game, they have been in the game soo long that generally those who own them worked hard to collect them, and they provide cheaper products for the general population on the markets they do control.
Furthermore, this change makes it riskier to utilize a T2 BPO, as it must be in a POS to use it at a POS, or it suffers the same line markups as everyone else (which you can use to encourage a T2 BPO holder to "move" his asset).
Finally, we don't know how POS's, Lowsec Stations, and Outposts will be altered in this industry release. They could have some interesting benefits that we don't know about yet. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20771
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:42:00 -
[374] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Slightly higher output for T2 BPOs => Slightly lower output for invention => Slightly lower profits for invention. No, the output of T2 BPOs does not affect the output of invention, and the market prices for most T2 stuff is determined by the invention so there's very little to suggest that their profits will go down by any appreciable amount anyway.
Quote:Your argument is that we should ignore the benefits reaped by T2 BPO owners because they are small. No, my argument is that we should look at the change as a whole, not pick apart small portions of it before the entire edifice is ready. If BPO owners get some minor benefit for a single expansion cycle, then so what. Wait until you know what happens to invention before complaining about what happens to invention. Right now, the same copying speed increase that benefits BPO holders benefits inventors as well, as they can react more quickly to changing markets (which is the already huge benefit they enjoy).
Myxx wrote:I see. Then I misunderstood. We have different ideas as to what is good for the use of moons and starbases. I don't have any problem with the copying process being injected as a first step in manufacturing GÇö it creates an interesting dynamic and planning element. The rest should be swallowed up in pre-existing logistics. There are indeed some worries here, but there's no point in screaming about them until the research blog is out and we know what it'll actually look like.
theman428 wrote:sorry using your quote here but tippia not all of it is good... this will utterly destroy the ability to make supers and titans. people will have to spend months of time copying BPOs to make these ships since they cannot be produced in a station or in high sec... so tell me how thats good for the economy. It won't destroy anything. It will delay the production of certain items by introducing a copying step in all production. This is good for two reasons: it creates a greater uniformity between different types of production and puts some pressure on these new GÇ£infiniteGÇ¥ slots GÇö it makes the bottleneck dynamic and universal rather than static and selective. It also rewards planning and forethought more, and smooths out dips and peaks in the economy. 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. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6923
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:44:00 -
[375] - Quote
Adellle Nadair wrote:
You are an edge case variant. And are in no way representative of the majority that this change effects.
i am responding to a guy saying it screws up supercap production which is simply obviously wrong
why you're wrong is just obvious on its face because tons of highsec systems have research and factories in the same system so that effort barrier is flying from one station to another like once a week, hardly some actual effort barrier Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20771
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:44:00 -
[376] - Quote
Rapscallion Jones wrote:And meanwhile inventors wait until October or December to be competitive with your buff while they work out what to do next. They'll be as competitive as ever since they already massively outproduce BPOs on everything worth-while. Your competition, as always, is other inventors. 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. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
307
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:45:00 -
[377] - Quote
Tense reading session...
- Cleaning market groups... sure..
- Stopping the damage... not bad, not bad..
- Extra Materials - still not bad..
- Removing indy slots - Needs way way more details. How will people tell the cost of manu in different areas? This is making some POS obsolete? Why not keep manu slots + add the scaling cost, this way would be easy to spot how busy a station is remotely, allow more slots in LS/NS, etc.
- Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space - Uhmmmm.. makes it too easy imo but I agree standing grind is horrible... okay.
- Having to move blueprints to POS to use them - Wait.... WHAT??!!!! #%)(% *% !)(% !# % % !&% ( #%! % !* % )!%# %&%)(!#% %!#*&^^&) ! #$(* % !#&%(%#!$# !#%&(%#!)#%& ! $ ! $&! )%& % ! %!(%&
Okay... it is apparent that people making the decision on this have never dealt with serious industry production, or are trying to kill personalized production in favor of forcing people to use station services instead of POS and forcing them to spread all over EVE. Why is this apparent? Because anyone who knows how mass production works would shudder at the mere thought of such prospect, let alone think of implementing it. And no, it's not just the security that's at stake.
CCP Ytterbium and everyone else involved, I invite you to join my corporation for a few days. I will walk you through the industry process, especially the way you think it should be done. I encourage you to live through it for a couple of days before you condemn us all to this nightmare of a scenario. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5576
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:45:00 -
[378] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Weaselior wrote:protip research poshavers: it is expected and anticipated your expensive bpos will be moved to station slots, you should stop appearing flabbergasted that you will have to move them Also, read the following line in the devblog again: GÇó Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Moving the BPO around will be no more needed than it currently is. The big change is rather than you will need to expend one character's research capacity on creating copies to build from. Exactly this.
Granted if you want to improve your BPO's or make copies of them at a POS you'll be putting your BPO's at risk... unless there is something up CCP's sleeve.
If they don't then I"m not sure what they will do about research POS hardware, as it likely won't get used much. 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. |
Proton Power
Evolution Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:46:00 -
[379] - Quote
Tetania wrote:Ok. I'm intrigued and I'll wait patiently for the rest of the plan to be unveiled.
As someone who builds Titans I'd just like to get another voice behind considerations for POS building.
Reducing copy time would certainly be viable for Hull Building after a brief delay to get copies started after the first post patch build that will be fine.
Components tho. Assuming a 1man corp which is going to be a must without lockdown. You still need to keep either 30Bil of BPOs in a POS anc choose betwen gambling on a successful defense or destroying around 20Bil in minerals to retrieve the BPOs while the POS is being reinforced. Or drastically increase your hauling from Refine minerals in station and haul to POS in system. To Refine minerals in Station and haul through a stargate to an Amarr station and then haul components from station to POS to build the ship off a BPC.
I already use 8 freighters multiboxed and consider the existing movement excessive. This would be hundreds of trips.
Upping the copies on a component BPC to 45-50 would be start as long as copy time is <= build time.
Otherwise allowing mineral recovery when jobs are cancelled would be an option but it forces a very very high attention level on POSes and makes eve a literal job to avoid catastrophic loss of assets.
I know supercap builders are the 1% but please don't make the extreme edge cases of ****** mechanics worse for us.
Its not just Super Caps, its any Capital Producer or T2 Producer...
Right now to produce my line of stuff I use 220 Factory slots 24/7, leaving 30 in the system for randoms taht come in or random jobs we install. Meaning overtime I am sure that tax rate will get up to 14%...
So Lets say I produce 5 T2 BPO's out of those, well I first get hit with 14% fee on the T2 Components, then another 14% fee on the T1 comonents, and then another 14% fee on the RAM, and then another 14% fee on the t2 builds.
Well I could build in the POS, oh wait, who will move t2 bpo's to a POS???
Really not liking some of this.. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
872
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:47:00 -
[380] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:You will also get a list of locations you can install the job in the region with a way to compare their relative pricing. So I guess just to beat a dead horse, will the UI show "Cost if nobody is using it (0% increase): X" and "Cost currently with station "full" (+14% increase): Y"? Or, will the UI just show a range of prices from station to station not really divulging the amount of "traffic" at that station? I mean, I guess what I'm getting at is will we be able to see that absolute best price (0%) relative to all stations that may or may not be incurring a price hike because of demand?
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! << |
|
Myxx
701
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:48:00 -
[381] - Quote
Rapscallion Jones wrote:Myxx wrote:Rapscallion Jones wrote:
And meanwhile inventors wait until October or December to be competitive with your buff while they work out what to do next.
um... no. This is actually liable to be more annoying for me than it is you. You'll have to excuse me if I'm not sympathetic to your having to update your spreadsheets to reflect your new found profits.
No.
I'll spell this out using smaller words for you:
You get to keep pretty much all of your logistics and infastructure in place without much change. The production chain I am apart of, however, will have to increase the number of systems and stations we use which also involves moving a lot of crap around needlessly.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20773
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:48:00 -
[382] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Exactly this.
Granted if you want to improve your BPO's or make copies of them at a POS you'll be putting your BPO's at risk... unless there is something up CCP's sleeve.
If they don't then I"m not sure what they will do about research POS hardware, as it likely won't get used much. With the long-term benefits it provides, I'm fairly certain that keeping those BPOs locked up in the station and just paying the congestion fee for doing the research there will pay itself off in the long run. So that particular sleeve seems to be exposed already.
I suppose this could mean that some BPOs stay in GÇ£stasisGÇ¥ for longer while they're being researched at a safe location, but I'm also fairly certain that the new BPO-BPC dynamic will create new fixes for that logistical need, and make the whole thing built into the overall production process. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5576
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:48:00 -
[383] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Tense reading session...
- Cleaning market groups... sure..
- Stopping the damage... not bad, not bad..
- Extra Materials - still not bad..
- Removing indy slots - Needs way way more details. How will people tell the cost of manu in different areas? This is making some POS obsolete? Why not keep manu slots + add the scaling cost, this way would be easy to spot how busy a station is remotely, allow more slots in LS/NS, etc.
- Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space - Uhmmmm.. makes it too easy imo but I agree standing grind is horrible... okay.
- Having to move blueprints to POS to use them - Wait.... WHAT??!!!! #%)(% *% !)(% !# % % !&% ( #%! % !* % )!%# %&%)(!#% %!#*&^^&) ! #$(* % !#&%(%#!$# !#%&(%#!)#%& ! $ ! $&! )%& % ! %!(%&
Okay... it is apparent that people making the decision on this have never dealt with serious industry production, or are trying to kill personalized production in favor of forcing people to use station services instead of POS and forcing them to spread all over EVE. Why is this apparent? Because anyone who knows how mass production works would shudder at the mere thought of such prospect, let alone think of implementing it. And no, it's not just the security that's at stake. CCP Ytterbium and everyone else involved, I invite you to join my corporation for a few days. I will walk you through the industry process, especially the way you think it should be done. I encourage you to live through it for a couple of days before you condemn us all to this nightmare of a scenario. Perhaps you should read the entire blog first.
Pay particular attention to the part concerning the reduction in the time it will take to make BPC's, thus facilitating using them to build from in POS's.
Perhaps lose a bit of the condescension as well, as it's making you look a bit foolish right now. 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. |
Mai Khumm
593
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:49:00 -
[384] - Quote
Before my post got thoughtfully locked by ISD from asking questions. (And received answers from Devs.)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=337284
I was directed here!
I'll ask what couldn't be answered here!
Was this new "I don't need standings anymore to dump POSs" tested in Nullsec to prevent Alliances from dumping a POS in another Alliances territory?
With abandoned POSs, what is currently in place to prevent alliances from dumping a POS on every moon in highsec/near large tradehubs then abandoning them?
As was suggest in said thread which I will repost here since it is a good idea.
Quote: After X days (I say 7-10) after the POS has been without fuel. The POS in question model will change to make it look abandoned. At that point, you can use the Hacking minigame to hack and "Highjack" the POS in question..
-edit-
I hope to actually get an answer to this... *insert witty saying here* |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5576
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:51:00 -
[385] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Exactly this.
Granted if you want to improve your BPO's or make copies of them at a POS you'll be putting your BPO's at risk... unless there is something up CCP's sleeve.
If they don't then I"m not sure what they will do about research POS hardware, as it likely won't get used much. With the long-term benefits it provides, I'm fairly certain that keeping those BPOs locked up in the station and just paying the congestion fee for doing the research there will pay itself off in the long run. So that particular sleeve seems to be exposed already. I'm assuming this to be the case, but you never know.
If it's left like it is the bad is that POS research labs will go unused, which bothers me a bit.
However the immense good that would come out of it is that there would be a huge number of BPC's being transported around.
Shuttle pilots beware. 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. |
Death Ryder
Angels and Devils Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:51:00 -
[386] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Entity wrote:Weaselior wrote:Entity wrote:So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?
I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated eight years was 7.9 too long Risk free? What? Is your brain turned off or something? - The pos alone is worth 8 billion+ (all faction stuff) - I stand to lose a month worth of product to the tune of 20 billion if someone decides to blow it up. I'm fine with -that- risk, but having to literally put ALL my eggs in that one easy to pop basket is completely unacceptable. Let's see who CCP listens to: 1. One of the most famous, long term players in the game, who knows a thing or 2, or a million, about Eve industry. 2. A member of a group dedicated to ruining gameplay for as many as possible, and who is openly gloating over the changes.
theyll listen to the DH from goon cause theyve shown themselves to be pvp supporters all along unfortunately... we're the fodder that ccp feeds them wih.. |
In ViTrIoL
Sons of Ivaldi Zero Hour Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:52:00 -
[387] - Quote
so will RAM be used up like any other material? |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Kadeshians
47
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:53:00 -
[388] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Rapscallion Jones wrote:Myxx wrote:Rapscallion Jones wrote:Chanina wrote:
So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs?
Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment.
This 100x over! If you want to eliminate invention just come out and say it. When shall we expect Tech 2 BPOs to be seeded on the market? You really need to re-examine this. T2 BPO copies aren't going to get sold for the most part. They'll be used for production, alts will be made to copy in stations in total safety. We'll have to log in slightly more often, but we can still spread our production chain out if need be. This is what I'm pretty sure CCP is expecting. And meanwhile inventors wait until October or December to be competitive with your buff while they work out what to do next. um... no. This is actually liable to be more annoying for me than it is you.
Thou you are currently making profit by selling products you build cheaper than any inventor could dream off and it gets annoying for you that you may have to change your production from 24/7 one time production to a "I have to copy them first" and then put multiple productions in parallel. Which will most likely yield a higher net output of products ... and now you are the one who might get annoyed... for being able to make more profit?
Well sorry but I don't feel sorry for that. |
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight Initiative Associates
36
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:53:00 -
[389] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Adellle Nadair wrote:
You are an edge case variant. And are in no way representative of the majority that this change effects.
i am responding to a guy saying it screws up supercap production which is simply obviously wrong why you're wrong is just obvious on its face because tons of highsec systems have research and factories in the same system so that effort barrier is flying from one station to another like once a week, hardly some actual effort barrier
Quote:effort barrier is flying from one station to another like once a week
Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about. This change will give anyone who does normal industrial activities a headache. It will greatly increase the time and effort needed to do industry. |
Ruric Thyase
Star Frontiers Test Alliance Please Ignore
26
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:53:00 -
[390] - Quote
Build at a POS:
Pro: you do not have to pay scaling costs from building in stations Con: The BPO/BPC has to now be at the POS, putting it at risk
Build at a station: Pro: The BPO is safer from wardec's and corp thiefs Con: You have to pay the scaling cost (if any) if you are in an active industrial zone
Can't speak for capital construction, but It really doesnt seem like the end of the world people are making out to be |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20773
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:53:00 -
[391] - Quote
So what you're saying is that now would be a good time to really crank up the production of blockade runners? 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. |
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:54:00 -
[392] - Quote
theman428 wrote:sorry using your quote here but tippia not all of it is good... this will utterly destroy the ability to make supers and titans. people will have to spend months of time copying BPOs to make these ships since they cannot be produced in a station or in high sec... so tell me how thats good for the economy. It won't destroy anything. It will delay the production of certain items by introducing a copying step (unless you want to risk it by manufacturing stuff right this second). This is good for two reasons: it creates a greater uniformity between different types of production and puts some pressure on these new GÇ£infiniteGÇ¥ slots GÇö it makes the bottleneck dynamic and universal rather than static and selective. It also rewards planning and forethought more, and smooths out dips and peaks in the economy.[/quote]
as it stands right now... it takes 3 days 16 hours and 53 minutes to make a 5 run copy. to build an avatar with a ME lvl 1 BPC u need 525 of 1 type of componet. if you had 5 BPOs of that componet it would take you 78 days to copy enough for 1 run on the titan not including the titan BPO itself which takes 177 days 18 hours and 40 min to copy.. so tell me how thats viable to produce ttians? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5576
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:54:00 -
[393] - Quote
Mai Khumm wrote:Before my post got thoughtfully locked by ISD from asking questions. (And received answers from Devs.) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=337284I was directed here! I'll ask what couldn't be answered here! Was this new "I don't need standings anymore to dump POSs" tested in Nullsec to prevent Alliances from dumping a POS in another Alliances territory? With abandoned POSs, what is currently in place to prevent alliances from dumping a POS on every moon in highsec/near large tradehubs then abandoning them? As was suggest in said thread which I will repost here since it is a good idea. Quote: After X days (I say 7-10) after the POS has been without fuel. The POS in question model will change to make it look abandoned. At that point, you can use the Hacking minigame to hack and "Highjack" the POS in question..
-edit- I hope to actually get an answer to this... I can put up a POS anywhere I like in Null Sec, not that it's a good idea of course.
They've already commented that they will need to come up with a revision as to how to handle abandoned POS's.
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. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:54:00 -
[394] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Kadl wrote:Tippia wrote:Chanina wrote:I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one. Slightly higher output for T2 BPOs => Slightly lower output for invention => Slightly lower profits for invention. Your argument is that we should ignore the benefits reaped by T2 BPO owners because they are small. I think that is a move in the wrong direction, and should be avoided. I would like CCP to make a commitment to avoid improving the overall use of T2 BPO for their owners. I am uncertain whether the overall situation will improve for T2 BPO owners. For example, will they end up being required to place their T2 BPO in a POS in order to reach the old levels of production. Before we get on the "OMG T2 BPO's must die" hype train, I think we should wait and see what other changes are in store for us.
I agree that we need to see the other changes. I am not on some hype train about killing T2 BPOs. I just don't want to see them push out any inventors. I think it is fair to note some concern about T2 BPOs pressuring inventors without being accused of hyping it.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:In general, T2 BPO's are a good thing for this game. They only control a small market fraction for most items in game, they have been in the game soo long that generally those who own them worked hard to collect them, and they provide cheaper products for the general population on the markets they do control.
Furthermore, this change makes it riskier to utilize a T2 BPO, as it must be in a POS to use it at a POS, or it suffers the same line markups as everyone else (which you can use to encourage a T2 BPO holder to "move" his asset).
If the T2 BPOs must be risked to actually improve their production then that is great. It will mean slow deaths for them as those POSes are attacked. It seems to me that there are many pieces to this puzzle we don't have. People are noting many good specific concerns, but unannounced changes can tip the balance. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:56:00 -
[395] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Btw, as far as defending a pos goes in highsec: Ever heard of a dickstar? In highsec, those can be especially annoying to deal with. your goal with risking stuff in a starbase might not work the way you think it will.
Agreed that the change will not have the effect they are looking for. It would require people play stupid, which they tend to not do often. |
Myxx
702
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:57:00 -
[396] - Quote
Chanina wrote:Myxx wrote:Rapscallion Jones wrote:
And meanwhile inventors wait until October or December to be competitive with your buff while they work out what to do next.
um... no. This is actually liable to be more annoying for me than it is you. Thou you are currently making profit by selling products you build cheaper than any inventor could dream off and it gets annoying for you that you may have to change your production from 24/7 one time production to a "I have to copy them first" and then put multiple productions in parallel. Which will most likely yield a higher net output of products ... and now you are the one who might get annoyed... for being able to make more profit? Well sorry but I don't feel sorry for that. It doesn't quite work like that. See, my current focus is more on making the scaling cost as irrelevant as I can and to avoid putting high value assets at needless risk at the same time.
Production output isn't going to go up for me... much, anyway. If it does, it probably won't last long. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
307
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:58:00 -
[397] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:So many 'omg my BPO won't be safe in a station anymore!' tears :D What part of risk vs reward don't you people understand? You want safety? Enjoy copying your BPO to keep it safe.
Also I'm loving the indirect effect on the production of super caps this is going to have.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Let's talk about Risk vs. Reward. The minimal EFFICIENCY of using a POS instead of a station requires for you to: Get a POS Set it up Fuel/maintain it Deal with a ton of logistics related to manufacturing out of the POS.
There's already a ton of risk involved and the benefits are marginal. You're not only putting the structures at risk but also all the materials you use for production! The RISK is there and it's enough. You don't need to add a nightmarish amount of logistics to POS production in addition to risking billions worth of BPOs. If your industry corporation is not a one man operation and knows what it's doing, you have your BPOs locked down. If you have your BPOs locked down, you're adding a whole new (insane ly broken and stir crazy) process to manufacturing. So the only sane option is.... abandon the POS, build in station, 100 jumps away in some dead hermit system. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20776
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:01:00 -
[398] - Quote
theman428 wrote:as it stands right now... Did you miss the part where creating the copies needed to produce N items will be faster than producing N items directly from the BPO? GÇ£As it stands right nowGÇ¥ is irrelevant because that's not how it will stand after the change.
So the numbers you provided are meaningless. Instead, tell me how many blueprints you need to make use of and how long it takes to produce from those blueprints, because that's what matters for how it will work in the future. 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. |
Fantome
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:01:00 -
[399] - Quote
To add some content to those nice change.. can we have a new item to be abble to scan which BPO are inside POS ?
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
72
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:02:00 -
[400] - Quote
Tippia wrote:theman428 wrote:as it stands right now... Did you miss the part where creating the copies needed to produce N items will be faster than producing N items directly from the BPO? GÇ£As it stands right nowGÇ¥ is irrelevant because that's not how it will stand after the change. So the numbers you provided are meaningless. Instead, tell me how many blueprints you need to make use of and how long it takes to produce from those blueprints, because that's what matters for how it will work in the future.
They never stated that it would be faster, only that after the change goes into effect, it would not be longer. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5577
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:03:00 -
[401] - Quote
theman428 wrote:theman428 wrote:sorry using your quote here but tippia not all of it is good... this will utterly destroy the ability to make supers and titans. people will have to spend months of time copying BPOs to make these ships since they cannot be produced in a station or in high sec... so tell me how thats good for the economy. It won't destroy anything. It will delay the production of certain items by introducing a copying step (unless you want to risk it by manufacturing stuff right this second). This is good for two reasons: it creates a greater uniformity between different types of production and puts some pressure on these new GÇ£infiniteGÇ¥ slots GÇö it makes the bottleneck dynamic and universal rather than static and selective. It also rewards planning and forethought more, and smooths out dips and peaks in the economy.
Quote:as it stands right now... it takes 3 days 16 hours and 53 minutes to make a 5 run copy. to build an avatar with a ME lvl 1 BPC u need 525 of 1 type of componet. if you had 5 BPOs of that componet it would take you 78 days to copy enough for 1 run on the titan not including the titan BPO itself which takes 177 days 18 hours and 40 min to copy.. so tell me how thats viable to produce ttians?
Edit these times are NPC station times ofc Keep in mind that copying times will be reduced ( in some cases probably dramatically), and the cap on Captial copys is on the "to fix" list. 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20776
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:03:00 -
[402] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:They never stated that it would be faster, only that after the change goes into effect, it would not be longer. GÇ£Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.GÇ¥
Yes they did. 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. |
Misty Higgins
Justified Chaos
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:05:00 -
[403] - Quote
Am I reading this correct? I will have to pay the cost scaling to use my own POS even though I already pay to fuel it? |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:06:00 -
[404] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:Slightly higher output for T2 BPOs => Slightly lower output for invention => Slightly lower profits for invention. No, the output of T2 BPOs does not affect the output of invention, and the market prices for most T2 stuff is determined by the invention so there's very little to suggest that their profits will go down by any appreciable amount anyway. Something seems clearly wrong in your statements about supply and demand here. If as you say there is higher output for the T2 BPOs then either inventors will produce less or demand will increase. Demand increases when prices drop. Perhaps T2 inventors will merely have to accept a slightly smaller margin.
Tippia wrote:No, my argument is that we should look at the change as a whole, not pick apart small portions of it before the entire edifice is ready. If BPO owners get some minor benefit for a single expansion cycle, then so what. Wait until you know what happens to invention before complaining about what happens to invention. Right now, the same copying speed increase that benefits BPO holders benefits inventors as well, as they can react more quickly to changing markets (which is the already huge benefit they enjoy). I can agree that we need to see the other changes. At the same time I think it is fine to note that we don't want to see an general increase in production from the T2 BPOs (without an increase in risk). Since we do not have the other developments available we can merely note that the current situation looks concerning, and leave it at that. |
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:07:00 -
[405] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Tippia wrote:theman428 wrote:as it stands right now... Did you miss the part where creating the copies needed to produce N items will be faster than producing N items directly from the BPO? GÇ£As it stands right nowGÇ¥ is irrelevant because that's not how it will stand after the change. So the numbers you provided are meaningless. Instead, tell me how many blueprints you need to make use of and how long it takes to produce from those blueprints, because that's what matters for how it will work in the future. They never stated that it would be faster, only that after the change goes into effect, it would not be longer.
thy for helping me out here but they actually did say they were going to speed it up i just missed it cause i was in shuch shock that they were going to do this.
"Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original."
but to ber fair even if they gave a 100% bounes to copy time it would still leave u with 86 days coping a titan BPO |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5577
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:10:00 -
[406] - Quote
theman428 wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Tippia wrote:theman428 wrote:as it stands right now... Did you miss the part where creating the copies needed to produce N items will be faster than producing N items directly from the BPO? GÇ£As it stands right nowGÇ¥ is irrelevant because that's not how it will stand after the change. So the numbers you provided are meaningless. Instead, tell me how many blueprints you need to make use of and how long it takes to produce from those blueprints, because that's what matters for how it will work in the future. They never stated that it would be faster, only that after the change goes into effect, it would not be longer. thy for helping me out here but they actually did say they were going to speed it up i just missed it cause i was in shuch shock that they were going to do this. "Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original." but to ber fair even if they gave a 100% bounes to copy time it would still leave u with 86 days coping a titan BPO Don't feel bad, apparently 95% of the people posting in this thread either missed or misinterpreted that part of the Blog as well. 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. |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Kadeshians
47
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:11:00 -
[407] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Tippia wrote:theman428 wrote:as it stands right now... Did you miss the part where creating the copies needed to produce N items will be faster than producing N items directly from the BPO? GÇ£As it stands right nowGÇ¥ is irrelevant because that's not how it will stand after the change. So the numbers you provided are meaningless. Instead, tell me how many blueprints you need to make use of and how long it takes to produce from those blueprints, because that's what matters for how it will work in the future. They never stated that it would be faster, only that after the change goes into effect, it would not be longer.
DEV-Blog wrote: Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.
needing less time than manufacturing something out of it pretty much sounds like: making copies will always be faster. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:13:00 -
[408] - Quote
Ruric Thyase wrote:Build at a POS:
Pro: you do not have to pay scaling costs from building in stations Con: The BPO/BPC has to now be at the POS, putting it at risk
Build at a station: Pro: The BPO is safer from wardec's and corp thiefs Con: You have to pay the scaling cost (if any) if you are in an active industrial zone
Can't speak for capital construction, but It really doesnt seem like the end of the world people are making out to be
No one is going to put expensive BPOs in a low/null POS.
And with the inability to lockdown, corp theft is a real issue
So, the real con is the hassle of having to set up an alt corp, run a high sec large POS to do research and crank out BPCs. Then add the BPCs to regularly scheduled jump freighter runs.
Unnecessary grind with no game play value.
You cannot make us play stupid. You can only make us change our play style with unnecessary grind!
They need to reverse the decision to let you have the BPO in station. The change is NOT going to produce the intended game play risk/reward, and will only create pointless grind.
|
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:14:00 -
[409] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Ruric Thyase wrote:Build at a POS:
Pro: you do not have to pay scaling costs from building in stations Con: The BPO/BPC has to now be at the POS, putting it at risk
Build at a station: Pro: The BPO is safer from wardec's and corp thiefs Con: You have to pay the scaling cost (if any) if you are in an active industrial zone
Can't speak for capital construction, but It really doesnt seem like the end of the world people are making out to be No one is going to put expensive BPOs in a low/null POS. And with the inability to lockdown, corp theft is a real issue So, the real con is the hassle of having to set up an alt corp, run a high sec large POS to do research and crank out BPCs. Then add the BPCs to regularly scheduled jump freighter runs. Unnecessary grind with no game play value. You cannot make us play stupid. You can only make us change our play style with unnecessary grind! They need to reverse the decision to let you have the BPO in station. The change is NOT going to produce the intended game play risk/reward, and will only create pointless grind.
LArge Caldari Control towers D*ckstar setup will counter most high sec fleets
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20776
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:14:00 -
[410] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Something seems clearly wrong in your statements about supply and demand here. If as you say there is higher output for the T2 BPOs then either inventors will produce less or demand will increase. Demand increases when prices drop. Perhaps T2 inventors will merely have to accept a slightly smaller margin. What's wrong is that you read too much into it GÇö specifically, I'm not talking about demand at all. I'm saying that if BPO holders produce slightly more and inventors produce the same as ever, the difference in supply will be so small as to not have any appreciable effect.
Quote:I can agree that we need to see the other changes. At the same time I think it is fine to note that we don't want to see an general increase in production from the T2 BPOs (without an increase in risk). As luck would have it, there is an increase in risk that goes along with it if they want to really make full use of that increased output potential. 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. |
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1148
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:15:00 -
[411] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules: 7. Use of profanity is prohibited.
The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Myxx
702
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:16:00 -
[412] - Quote
Chanina wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Tippia wrote:theman428 wrote:as it stands right now... Did you miss the part where creating the copies needed to produce N items will be faster than producing N items directly from the BPO? GÇ£As it stands right nowGÇ¥ is irrelevant because that's not how it will stand after the change. So the numbers you provided are meaningless. Instead, tell me how many blueprints you need to make use of and how long it takes to produce from those blueprints, because that's what matters for how it will work in the future. They never stated that it would be faster, only that after the change goes into effect, it would not be longer. DEV-Blog wrote: Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.
needing less time than manufacturing something out of it pretty much sounds like: making copies will always be faster.
I'll grant you that theoretically, there "could" come a time where we can output bpcs fast enough in our production cycle to consider selling off some extra copies... but with the risk of putting the production bpc into a starbase during production, having a stockpile of comps, extra bpcs and such just "in case" will probably be taken care of first. I don't really see this as a worthwhile concern for you. The security of the production chain is infinitely more important than short term profits found in selling bpcs off.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5577
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:19:00 -
[413] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Ruric Thyase wrote:Build at a POS:
Pro: you do not have to pay scaling costs from building in stations Con: The BPO/BPC has to now be at the POS, putting it at risk
Build at a station: Pro: The BPO is safer from wardec's and corp thiefs Con: You have to pay the scaling cost (if any) if you are in an active industrial zone
Can't speak for capital construction, but It really doesnt seem like the end of the world people are making out to be No one is going to put expensive BPOs in a low/null POS. And with the inability to lockdown, corp theft is a real issue So, the real con is the hassle of having to set up an alt corp, run a high sec large POS to do research and crank out BPCs. Then add the BPCs to regularly scheduled jump freighter runs. Unnecessary grind with no game play value. You cannot make us play stupid. You can only make us change our play style with unnecessary grind! They need to reverse the decision to let you have the BPO in station. The change is NOT going to produce the intended game play risk/reward, and will only create pointless grind. I sincerely doubt that many will put their BPO's even in high sec POS's for the purposes of copying.
Instead they will simply lock their BPO's down in an NPC station to make their BPC's, without resorting to creating an alt corp or risking them in a POS.
Unless they have their own outpost in Null of course, or are damn sure of their ability to defend a POS.
Hmmm, this could make Null Sec NPC stations a very interesting place to be, if there are any with research/copy capabilities. (I haven't really paid attention to that before TBH) 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. |
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
154
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:22:00 -
[414] - Quote
Hey look at it this way if 3/4 of the T2 BPO's die in an pool of napalm CCP will do another lottery so new players have a chance getting into that market.
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
Nazoraios Zosimos
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:22:00 -
[415] - Quote
Go home CCP. You guys gotta be drunk. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5577
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:25:00 -
[416] - Quote
Thead Enco wrote:Hey look at it this way if 3/4 of the T2 BPO's die in an pool of napalm CCP will do another lottery so new players have a chance getting into that market. It is HIGHLY unlikely that any T2 BPO's will ever see the inside of a POS. 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. |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Kadeshians
48
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:25:00 -
[417] - Quote
Myxx wrote: I'll grant you that theoretically, there "could" come a time where we can output bpcs fast enough in our production cycle to consider selling off some extra copies... but with the risk of putting the production bpc into a starbase during production, having a stockpile of comps, extra bpcs and such just "in case" will probably be taken care of first. I don't really see this as a worthwhile concern for you. The security of the production chain is infinitely more important than short term profits found in selling bpcs off.
I don't think you HAVE to put your BPCs into production at starbase. You currently can do it remotely, as do I with my bpcs at station. That goes away for both of us. But if you can now copy (just pulling some numbers) at the double rate than you can manufacture, you can increase your production output by just coping them on station and building them on station from those copies. At the end of the day you may end up with more output than possible from manufacturing in station. Maybe it is less than producing remote on POS currently. And if you are currently producing at a pos, every material is already at risk. If you add a BPCs there that won't change that values much. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:25:00 -
[418] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:gifter Penken wrote:Ruric Thyase wrote:Build at a POS:
Pro: you do not have to pay scaling costs from building in stations Con: The BPO/BPC has to now be at the POS, putting it at risk
Build at a station: Pro: The BPO is safer from wardec's and corp thiefs Con: You have to pay the scaling cost (if any) if you are in an active industrial zone
Can't speak for capital construction, but It really doesnt seem like the end of the world people are making out to be No one is going to put expensive BPOs in a low/null POS. And with the inability to lockdown, corp theft is a real issue So, the real con is the hassle of having to set up an alt corp, run a high sec large POS to do research and crank out BPCs. Then add the BPCs to regularly scheduled jump freighter runs. Unnecessary grind with no game play value. You cannot make us play stupid. You can only make us change our play style with unnecessary grind! They need to reverse the decision to let you have the BPO in station. The change is NOT going to produce the intended game play risk/reward, and will only create pointless grind. I sincerely doubt that many will put their BPO's even in high sec POS's for the purposes of copying. Instead they will simply lock their BPO's down in an NPC station to make their BPC's, without resorting to creating an alt corp or risking them in a POS. Unless they have their own outpost in Null of course, or are damn sure of their ability to defend a POS.
The new "scale price to usage" price mechanism for slots is likely going ito make copy slots prohibitively expensive. The alt corp with large POS is going to be the cheaper alternative.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20778
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:25:00 -
[419] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Hmmm, this could make Null Sec NPC stations a very interesting place to be, if there are any with research/copy capabilities. (I haven't really paid attention to that before TBH) There are quite a few.
Right now, NPC null holds nearly 1000 copy slots and 2000 each of ME, PE, and invention. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5577
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:30:00 -
[420] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:gifter Penken wrote:Ruric Thyase wrote:Build at a POS:
Pro: you do not have to pay scaling costs from building in stations Con: The BPO/BPC has to now be at the POS, putting it at risk
Build at a station: Pro: The BPO is safer from wardec's and corp thiefs Con: You have to pay the scaling cost (if any) if you are in an active industrial zone
Can't speak for capital construction, but It really doesnt seem like the end of the world people are making out to be No one is going to put expensive BPOs in a low/null POS. And with the inability to lockdown, corp theft is a real issue So, the real con is the hassle of having to set up an alt corp, run a high sec large POS to do research and crank out BPCs. Then add the BPCs to regularly scheduled jump freighter runs. Unnecessary grind with no game play value. You cannot make us play stupid. You can only make us change our play style with unnecessary grind! They need to reverse the decision to let you have the BPO in station. The change is NOT going to produce the intended game play risk/reward, and will only create pointless grind. I sincerely doubt that many will put their BPO's even in high sec POS's for the purposes of copying. Instead they will simply lock their BPO's down in an NPC station to make their BPC's, without resorting to creating an alt corp or risking them in a POS. Unless they have their own outpost in Null of course, or are damn sure of their ability to defend a POS. The new "scale price to usage" price mechanism for slots is likely going ito make copy slots prohibitively expensive. The alt corp with large POS is going to be the cheaper alternative. Possibly, but that is conjecture at this point. With any BPO of value it's not really a serious consideration unless you are very brave, or very foolish.
Currently copying is very time consuming (mostly due to the wait time involved to get a slot). With that no longer a factor we'll have to see how the pricing scales. 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. |
|
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:31:00 -
[421] - Quote
why is there a tab called teams? multiple people working on one BP? |
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:31:00 -
[422] - Quote
Chanina wrote:Myxx wrote: I'll grant you that theoretically, there "could" come a time where we can output bpcs fast enough in our production cycle to consider selling off some extra copies... but with the risk of putting the production bpc into a starbase during production, having a stockpile of comps, extra bpcs and such just "in case" will probably be taken care of first. I don't really see this as a worthwhile concern for you. The security of the production chain is infinitely more important than short term profits found in selling bpcs off.
I don't think you HAVE to put your BPCs into production at starbase. You currently can do it remotely, as do I with my bpcs at station. That goes away for both of us. But if you can now copy (just pulling some numbers) at the double rate than you can manufacture, you can increase your production output by just coping them on station and building them on station from those copies. At the end of the day you may end up with more output than possible from manufacturing in station. Maybe it is less than producing remote on POS currently. And if you are currently producing at a pos, every material is already at risk. If you add a BPCs there that won't change that values much.
no if your producing from a pos u will have to have the BPO/BPC in the pos with the mats not from the station... after patch ofc |
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:32:00 -
[423] - Quote
oohthey ioh wrote:why is there a tab called teams? multiple people working on one BP?
"In a last blog, CCP Soniclover will introduce the concept of teams, which are the workforce used for industry jobs in the new system."
that should answer your question |
Amber Solaire
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:33:00 -
[424] - Quote
Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
|
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:33:00 -
[425] - Quote
Thead Enco wrote:Hey look at it this way if 3/4 of the T2 BPO's die in an pool of napalm CCP will do another lottery so new players have a chance getting into that market.
T2 BPOs will not go to a POS. Even if they did, CCP would not bring back lottery, but they would finally be able to fix invention. |
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:34:00 -
[426] - Quote
Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Kadeshians
48
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:37:00 -
[427] - Quote
theman428 wrote: no if your producing from a pos u will have to have the BPO/BPC in the pos with the mats not from the station... after patch ofc
ofc you have to put the BPC into the pos if you WANT to produce at the pos. but you aren't forced to produce at a pos as there are stations where you can produce. YOU can decide whether to risk your bpc at the POS or not. But you can't get the safety of station and the advantage of the POS. I didn't said anything else. |
Amber Solaire
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:38:00 -
[428] - Quote
theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots
More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players)
That is not any improvement at all |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6928
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:40:00 -
[429] - Quote
Amber Solaire wrote:theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players) That is not any improvement at all less people doing it = profits skyrocket = people start doing it Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:40:00 -
[430] - Quote
Chanina wrote:theman428 wrote: no if your producing from a pos u will have to have the BPO/BPC in the pos with the mats not from the station... after patch ofc
ofc you have to put the BPC into the pos if you WANT to produce at the pos. but you aren't forced to produce at a pos as there are stations where you can produce. YOU can decide whether to risk your bpc at the POS or not. But you can't get the safety of station and the advantage of the POS. I didn't said anything else.
friend i was not responding to u.. please next time see who im quoting |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
340
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:41:00 -
[431] - Quote
Amber Solaire wrote:theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players) That is not any improvement at all You can mitigate the expense by spreading out from Jita and finding a nice, quiet place to produce, or erecting a POS, which, conveniently, had a significant barrier to entry removed. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:42:00 -
[432] - Quote
new high sec copy pos setup
http://eve.1019.net/pos/index.php?ct=03&mod=0W0W0W0O0O0O0U0U2H2H2H2H2H2J2J2J2J2J2L2L2L2L2L2N2N2N2N2N2N2N2N2N2N2L2L2L2L2L2J2J2J2J2J2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2J2J2J2L2L2L2N2N2N43434343&off= |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:42:00 -
[433] - Quote
Amber Solaire wrote:theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players) That is not any improvement at all
I suspect you will see a near equilibrium established where the high sec station slot prices increase to the point that the hassle of running a high sec alt corp with a POS to do research become profitable enough for people to do it.
What you are NOT going to see is the intended "people putting expensive BPOs into low/null sec POS then losing them to attack".
|
Rekkr Nordgard
Imperial Reclaiming
380
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:43:00 -
[434] - Quote
Some of these changes like killing extra materials seem really good; others like infinite building slots and scaling costs seem like they'll probably go horribly wrong.
I definitely don't like the **** you to lore with ending standings requirements for highsec POSes or the **** you to supercap producers with the BPO change. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
352
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:43:00 -
[435] - Quote
Amber Solaire wrote:theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players) That is not any improvement at all Given how many stations there are out there, I doubt that any pricing problem couldn't be solved by moving a few jumps further away from the busy systems. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
340
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:43:00 -
[436] - Quote
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? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
308
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:44:00 -
[437] - Quote
Re-reading the blog and browsing through the thread, I now realize and remember about so many more sandbox elements being killed. Yet again, throwing more toys into the sandbox instead of adding more sand.
We all know the standings are a pain for most people, why not implement a system for selling them? Let those who like to grind, grind for other. Like you did with sec status.
Slots are a problem? Allow us to rent our POS slots to the public, not just alliance! Let the players manage and run the economy. Instead you're pushing players away from player owned assets into NPC ones.
Why not have the option of selling LPs? Why not allow more tools and ways for people to deal with each other. We don't play EVE just because we can blow each other up, we play it because we can build something meaningful and interact with each other in many ways. |
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:45:00 -
[438] - Quote
From your dev blog
In turn, this allows us to change several points: GÇó 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).
GÇó Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures.
Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. GÇó Improve Mobile Laboratories and Assembly Arrays to compensate for such risk GÇô weGÇÖll give you final numbers as soon as we have them. GÇó Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.
Please take note of the single highlighted line, don't you think before you jump in with both feet that you should improve the almost non-existent, pitifully inadequate self defence AI of POS's before you force more valuable stuff into them and therefore " at Risk " Players cannot all be online 24-7-365 so greater self defence needs to be in there until Corp members can at least get on line in their time zone. To deal fairly with a given situation, at least that way you have a chance to have a reasonable balance in game, you know what I mean, 'the balance' you seem to advertise and hold in front of everyone on a big banner every time you change stuff. |
Ruric Thyase
Star Frontiers Test Alliance Please Ignore
27
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:45:00 -
[439] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Ruric Thyase wrote:Build at a POS:
Pro: you do not have to pay scaling costs from building in stations Con: The BPO/BPC has to now be at the POS, putting it at risk
Build at a station: Pro: The BPO is safer from wardec's and corp thiefs Con: You have to pay the scaling cost (if any) if you are in an active industrial zone
Can't speak for capital construction, but It really doesnt seem like the end of the world people are making out to be No one is going to put expensive BPOs in a low/null POS. And with the inability to lockdown, corp theft is a real issue So, the real con is the hassle of having to set up an alt corp, run a high sec large POS to do research and crank out BPCs. Then add the BPCs to regularly scheduled jump freighter runs. Unnecessary grind with no game play value. You cannot make us play stupid. You can only make us change our play style with unnecessary grind! They need to reverse the decision to let you have the BPO in station. The change is NOT going to produce the intended game play risk/reward, and will only create pointless grind.
Right, but in the old rules you still had to pay for the cost of running the POS. Granted to more experienced pilots of larger scale and investment the cost is negligible. Now since it sounds like (from the reactions on the forums) you HAVE to use a pos for T2 BPO/BPC manufacturing. Sure, I can see how this is a pain.
To be honest I am holding my breath on this one until I can see how large the 'scaling costs' are. I know the tenative is 0 - 14% but there are a lot of stations to manufacture in EVE and now you have unlimited slots. For the people that have 1000 BPs, it could be possible they find a quiet place and can have dozens more running without having to manage a POS.
*shrug* just have to wait and see, but at least you know in advance that a change is coming
|
Gynosi
Galcom Alpha
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:45:00 -
[440] - Quote
What did you guys smoke??
If you dont want ppl to stop build anything about a cruiser rethink your save station placement idea. Do you rly want some1 first copys a titan bpo 4 weeks to then be able to build "save" another 6 weeks? Wow so what you now added another step to build expensive stuff? And that slot whats missing on the ship copy cant copy parts. So i have to sub a 11th account or dualpay present accounts so i can compensate the 10 missing copy slots and build up a new copy cat? Wow you rly need subs dont you?
Btw capital parts; If you force ppl to do everything with copys in future this means 5run = 14-15h build time on researchd BPCs. So you force all chars who do the building to be present in Region / System 2 times a day to keep the lines busy. HF to all random ppl who not doing it with alot of heavy industry alt chars who are present anway.
Another note on reinforced posses. Even there would be posses with BPOs inside getting reinforecd (0.0 or low esp) and you would give ppl the chance to empty the arrays like ship arrays or silos you want ppl to cancle their jobs to get their BPOs save in case the pos can not be saved? Dont get me wrong its prolly what to do but cancle lets say 40 lines on comp assembly arrays "in case it can not be defended" and lose few dozen billion isk in material just to be sure your BPOs dont get hurt? WTF?
Did any1 of DEVs / GMs who have those ideas ever moved a freighter fleet to jita to buy 5b units minerals moved it to a compression center compressed stuff moved somewhere to 00 rerefined move all the mins again to pos and the accutaly build something like 6.5k cap parts to then finish a titan? Im pretty sure there answer is no. You guys are so far of the real game ... no words for this. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5577
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:46:00 -
[441] - Quote
Amber Solaire wrote:theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players) That is not any improvement at all Which means the number of people doing it will go down, thus reducing cost to do so, which will increase the number of people doing it, etc.
It's simply supply and demand, the price will find an equilibrium and it will affect everyone equally (new and old alike)... and market prices will adjust accordingly for the finished goods. 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. |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Kadeshians
48
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:47:00 -
[442] - Quote
theman428 wrote:...
friend i was not responding to u.. please next time see who im quoting
...
theman428 wrote:Chanina wrote:Myxx wrote: I'll grant you that theoretically, there "could" come a time where we can output bpcs fast enough in our production cycle to consider selling off some extra copies... but with the risk of putting the production bpc into a starbase during production, having a stockpile of comps, extra bpcs and such just "in case" will probably be taken care of first. I don't really see this as a worthwhile concern for you. The security of the production chain is infinitely more important than short term profits found in selling bpcs off.
I don't think you HAVE to put your BPCs into production at starbase. You currently can do it remotely, as do I with my bpcs at station. That goes away for both of us. But if you can now copy (just pulling some numbers) at the double rate than you can manufacture, you can increase your production output by just coping them on station and building them on station from those copies. At the end of the day you may end up with more output than possible from manufacturing in station. Maybe it is less than producing remote on POS currently. And if you are currently producing at a pos, every material is already at risk. If you add a BPCs there that won't change that values much. no if your producing from a pos u will have to have the BPO/BPC in the pos with the mats not from the station... after patch ofc ...
what did you just said? I give you a hint, it was post 419 here is the link |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20781
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:48:00 -
[443] - 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. It'll cost you a fortune though (or something thereabouts GÇö we have yet to see the cost scaling blog).
Really, the way to think of it for POS owners (also as a further response to an earlier question of GÇ£why do I have to pay for slots I already own?GÇ¥) is that right now, you might cap out on fitting requirements and end up with, say 40 slots. With this change, you can ignore that cap and run 120 jobs in parallel, but it'll cost you. The ability to bypass the POS fitting limits seems to me like more than adequate reason to have to pay for the slots twice. 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. |
Slappy Andven
A.C.M.E. Construction Inc. Criminal Minds
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:49:00 -
[444] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:You just need to store them at the pos, you don;t need to be at the pos, you cna keep them in one hanger that only you and your alts have access too.. so not much really changed.
You just have to scoop out your brain to think this is even remotely reasonable.
---á Slappy Andven CEO A.C.M.E. Construction, Inc.
|
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
1096
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:49:00 -
[445] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players)
That is not any improvement at all Given how many stations there are out there, I doubt that any pricing problem couldn't be solved by moving a few jumps further away from the busy systems.
"The freighting I do is free" is just a variant of "the minerals I mine are free."
What this will do is change the system so that instead of there being one variable to consider--how close am I to a market hub?--there are two. As of this change, there will be a tension between the added cost of manufacturing close to market and the added cost of manufacturing far away from market.
The result will be rings of manufacturing around market hubs consisting of people who account for their logistics costs, and a bunch of essentially random noise consisting of people who don't and people who are serving local niche markets. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
theman428
Twist Industry Unlimited
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:51:00 -
[446] - Quote
Chanina wrote:theman428 wrote:...
friend i was not responding to u.. please next time see who im quoting ... theman428 wrote:Chanina wrote:Myxx wrote: I'll grant you that theoretically, there "could" come a time where we can output bpcs fast enough in our production cycle to consider selling off some extra copies... but with the risk of putting the production bpc into a starbase during production, having a stockpile of comps, extra bpcs and such just "in case" will probably be taken care of first. I don't really see this as a worthwhile concern for you. The security of the production chain is infinitely more important than short term profits found in selling bpcs off.
I don't think you HAVE to put your BPCs into production at starbase. You currently can do it remotely, as do I with my bpcs at station. That goes away for both of us. But if you can now copy (just pulling some numbers) at the double rate than you can manufacture, you can increase your production output by just coping them on station and building them on station from those copies. At the end of the day you may end up with more output than possible from manufacturing in station. Maybe it is less than producing remote on POS currently. And if you are currently producing at a pos, every material is already at risk. If you add a BPCs there that won't change that values much. no if your producing from a pos u will have to have the BPO/BPC in the pos with the mats not from the station... after patch ofc ... what did you just said? I give you a hint, it was post 419 here is the link
my apologies i mis read it. i posted something similar to someone else and i thought u had quoted that one |
Drailen
ED-Technics Hephaestus Forge Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:52:00 -
[447] - Quote
In all this industry development work, is there any chance of finally getting some form of API to provide us with the ME, PE and runs of all our blueprints?
The S&I window can provide this information so it seems like a good candidate for the API (or CREST).
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2650
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:53:00 -
[448] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players) That is not any improvement at all I suspect you will see a near equilibrium established where the high sec station slot prices increase to the point that the hassle of running a high sec alt corp with a POS to do research become profitable enough for people to do it. What you are NOT going to see is the intended "people putting expensive BPOs into low/null sec POS then losing them to attack".
And what happens when some griefer corp, who is always looking for industrial corps to attack. spends a couple billion on small POS's, anchors them, then deadzones a few systems, and says "come at us". When there are very few moons available to put up POS's at in high sec, that is going to create a massive demand for station mfg, and then this huge cost is incurred by the majority of the player base, while those that work with the griefing corps, well, they get a POS available , and a massive cost advantage over those forced to use the station mfg.
Brilliant system. Null sec game mechanics come en masse to high sec. I was right, the PoCo's were just the first of many steps to ruin high sec industry.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5577
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:53:00 -
[449] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players)
That is not any improvement at all Given how many stations there are out there, I doubt that any pricing problem couldn't be solved by moving a few jumps further away from the busy systems. "The freighting I do is free" is just a variant of "the minerals I mine are free." What this will do is change the system so that instead of there being one variable to consider--how close am I to a market hub?--there are two. As of this change, there will be a tension between the added cost of manufacturing close to market and the added cost of manufacturing far away from market. The result will be rings of manufacturing around market hubs consisting of people who account for their logistics costs, and a bunch of essentially random noise consisting of people who don't and people who are serving local niche markets. Bear in mind the difference between spending 5 days mining your own materials, and 5 minutes ferrying your BPC's in a shuttle a few jumps.
However, human nature being what it is, this could well promote the emergence of new local trade hubs... which would be a plus. 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. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:56:00 -
[450] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players) That is not any improvement at all Given how many stations there are out there, I doubt that any pricing problem couldn't be solved by moving a few jumps further away from the busy systems.
research and copy slots are booked months in advance. It can be very difficult finding a high sec station that is within 10-20 jumps of a trade hub, with available office and available manufacturing slots. Remember, the office slots are still limited.
Alt corp with super hardened high sec large POS will be the way to go. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20782
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:56:00 -
[451] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:And what happens when some griefer corp, who is always looking for industrial corps to attack. spends a couple billion on small POS's, anchors them, then deadzones a few systems, and says "come at us". What happens is that they get wardecced and lose their billion-ISK investment in a matter of hours.
Quote:Null sec game mechanics come en masse to high sec. I was right, the PoCo's were just the first of many steps to ruin high sec industry. POCOs did not in any way ruin highsec industry, nor do these changes. So you weren't so much GÇ£rightGÇ¥ as GÇ£predictableGÇ¥. Also, how is it a bad thing that mechanics become more consistent across all space? 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. |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Kadeshians
48
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:57:00 -
[452] - Quote
theman428 wrote: my apologies i mis read it. i posted something similar to someone else and i thought u had quoted that one
accepted. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5578
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:57:00 -
[453] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:gifter Penken wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players) That is not any improvement at all I suspect you will see a near equilibrium established where the high sec station slot prices increase to the point that the hassle of running a high sec alt corp with a POS to do research become profitable enough for people to do it. What you are NOT going to see is the intended "people putting expensive BPOs into low/null sec POS then losing them to attack". And what happens when some griefer corp, who is always looking for industrial corps to attack. spends a couple billion on small POS's, anchors them, then deadzones a few systems, and says "come at us". When there are very few moons available to put up POS's at in high sec, that is going to create a massive demand for station mfg, and then this huge cost is incurred by the majority of the player base, while those that work with the griefing corps, well, they get a POS available , and a massive cost advantage over those forced to use the station mfg. Brilliant system. Null sec game mechanics come en masse to high sec. I was right, the PoCo's were just the first of many steps to ruin high sec industry. Considering how quick and easy it will be to move BPC's via shuttle several jumps in any direction from a market hub this would be completely impractical. Do you have any concept of what it would cost, or more importantly the time that would be involved in set up and maintenance, trying to blanket every moon in every system within a 5 or 10 jump radius of Jita? We are talking a mere 5 or 10 minutes of travel time.
Not really a cause for concern. 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. |
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:57:00 -
[454] - Quote
Tetania wrote:Ok. I'm intrigued and I'll wait patiently for the rest of the plan to be unveiled.
As someone who builds Titans I'd just like to get another voice behind considerations for POS building.
Reducing copy time would certainly be viable for Hull Building after a brief delay to get copies started after the first post patch build that will be fine.
Components tho. Assuming a 1man corp which is going to be a must without lockdown. You still need to keep either 30Bil of BPOs in a POS anc choose betwen gambling on a successful defense or destroying around 20Bil in minerals to retrieve the BPOs while the POS is being reinforced. Or drastically increase your hauling from Refine minerals in station and haul to POS in system. To Refine minerals in Station and haul through a stargate to an Amarr station and then haul components from station to POS to build the ship off a BPC.
I already use 8 freighters multiboxed and consider the existing movement excessive. This would be hundreds of trips.
Upping the copies on a component BPC to 45-50 would be start as long as copy time is <= build time.
Otherwise allowing mineral recovery when jobs are cancelled would be an option but it forces a very very high attention level on POSes and makes eve a literal job to avoid catastrophic loss of assets.
I know supercap builders are the 1% but please don't make the extreme edge cases of ****** mechanics worse for us.
then copy in station??????? and put bpcs in the pos?? |
Rekkr Nordgard
Imperial Reclaiming
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:58:00 -
[455] - Quote
You know, CCP could have just banned the use of BPOs worth more than 100 mil in low/null POSes starting with the summer expansion and the resulting gameplay would have been identical, but with less debate. |
Gamer4liff
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
79
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:58:00 -
[456] - Quote
I am overjoyed to see CCP addressing Manufacturing issues after all these years. I can't wait to see how much more efficient POS manufacturing is made. I dabbled in it previously with 2 of the 4 things I make, but if it's made even more viable, that's even better.
With the implied increased potency of POS Labs/Manufacturing it only makes sense to require more risk in using them. I'm not really sure what the argument is for removing standings requirements, but whatever, as long as clutter does not become too much of an issue, and there are still a reasonable amount of spots to take within reasonable distance from hubs. I'll be interested to see the new statistics on the POS modules, also this "Team" stuff. UI looks busy but still much better than what we have now.
For what it's worth, as a long-time manufacturer, I support CCP in this endeavor. |
Bill Lane
Military Gamers
51
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 19:59:00 -
[457] - Quote
I have nothing of value to add, other than I'm so excited about FINALLY getting a major indy expansion that as a 29 year old man I kinda want to jump around like a 12 year old girl getting a pony.....go ahead and run that through your mind. Now you may laugh or cry, your choice. http://www.militarygamers.com/ |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5578
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:00:00 -
[458] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players) That is not any improvement at all Given how many stations there are out there, I doubt that any pricing problem couldn't be solved by moving a few jumps further away from the busy systems. research and copy slots are booked months in advance. It can be very difficult finding a high sec station that is within 10-20 jumps of a trade hub, with available office and available manufacturing slots. Remember, the office slots are still limited. Alt corp with super hardened high sec large POS will be the way to go. That waiting time will be non-existent, and you certainly don't need an office to manufacture or research... it simply makes it easier for multiple people to be involved. For researching especially there will be little to no need for anyone else to be involved now anyway, considering the new interface. 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. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
627
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:01:00 -
[459] - Quote
theman428 wrote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
Worst change in this feature.
another Super capital nerf... thanks CCP.... with this change if you want to produce a supercapital ship you know have to risk all of your assets whcih can be hundreds of billions of isk. or spend months copying your blueprints to build 1 ship...
this has now given eve online 50% of the work for Supercap Proliferation... this changes coupled with the change to compression... expect price increases of 50%-100% of current hull values. of supercarriers and titans if they are produced at all...
Because supercap proliferation isn't a problem. amirite? Make your copies in station. Build in POS using copies. Why are so many people not getting this?
Coming soon... |
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:04:00 -
[460] - Quote
everyone shut the **** up, you lock down your ****** BPO's in station, and make copes in the station then use you BPC in the pos |
|
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:04:00 -
[461] - Quote
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:You know, CCP could have just banned the use of BPOs worth more than 100 mil in low/null POSes starting with the summer expansion and the resulting gameplay would have been identical, but with less debate.
use BPC |
Rekkr Nordgard
Imperial Reclaiming
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:05:00 -
[462] - Quote
oohthey ioh wrote:everyone shut the **** up, you lock down your ****** BPO's in station, and make copes in the station then use you BPC in the pos
Because adding valueless steps and making industry more complicated is what we wanted in an indy expansion. |
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:07:00 -
[463] - Quote
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:oohthey ioh wrote:everyone shut the **** up, you lock down your ****** BPO's in station, and make copes in the station then use you BPC in the pos Because adding valueless steps and making industry more complicated is what we wanted in an indy expansion.
then take the risk of using the bpo in the pos? the whole piont of the copys is for safe movement + inventing |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1096
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:08:00 -
[464] - Quote
This is amazing. While it comes across as overwhelmingly positive, I still can't help but echo the sentiment of killing/weakening secondary player professions. I can't help but want to ask if CCP considered these and thought the loss worth the gains or maybe they don't see the loss as being as significant as we naysayers see it. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5579
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:09:00 -
[465] - Quote
Okay, here is something oblique that may also have some relevance to these changes.
I think this means plans will be progressing for ship painting.
Kind of a stretch, I admit. However when you consider that if ship painting via a BPC goes into full swing the strain on manufacturing slots (and associated wait times) goes up.
Now many people might not be concerned about having their new BS and it's paint BPC tied up waiting for a slot to open up in a week, but a lot of people simply won't wait. They want their painted ship now, especially since the decision to paint a ship is often an impulse purchase (even more so if they decide to make paint bpc's even more affordable, as has been suggested).
With this change waiting would no longer be a factor, and makes it much more likely that people will actually take that extra step due to the wonder of that miracle called instant gratification.
It also gives me hope that CCP will even more firmly embrace the concept of making ship painting affordable (and now convenient) enough that just about everyone will regularly take that extra step. 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. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1885
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:10:00 -
[466] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Casual players are not allowed to play Eve. Didn't you get the memo? They are directing anyone who has a real life and can't commit at least 2 hours a day every day to Eve to wait for Star Citizen to boot up.
I must admit, Mike Azariah has done another bang-up job defending the high sec casual player.
These changes make it easier for me to log in once a week to update jobs and orders, casuals will be fine. Tinfoil encrusted fools however, that's another story. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Proof Highsec reward needs to be nerfed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
135
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:10:00 -
[467] - Quote
Rapscallion Jones wrote:Chanina wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Aliventi wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes. So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs? Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment. This 100x over! If you want to eliminate invention just come out and say it. When shall we expect Tech 2 BPOs to be seeded on the market? What is the point in trying to nerf Invention? Failing to really understand the logic behind this change. Surely putting more power into the hands of T2 BPO holders is a bad thing.
|
Sad MonkeySpanker
Chaos Army
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:11:00 -
[468] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote: ... The new "scale price to usage" price mechanism for slots is likely going ito make copy slots prohibitively expensive. The alt corp with large POS is going to be the cheaper alternative.
They did mention Risk-Reward....
|
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
154
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:11:00 -
[469] - Quote
D'Kelle wrote:From your dev blog
In turn, this allows us to change several points: GÇó 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).
GÇó Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures.
Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. GÇó Improve Mobile Laboratories and Assembly Arrays to compensate for such risk GÇô weGÇÖll give you final numbers as soon as we have them. GÇó Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.
Please take note of the single highlighted line, don't you think before you jump in with both feet that you should improve the almost non-existent, pitifully inadequate self defence AI of POS's before you force more valuable stuff into them and therefore " at Risk " Players cannot all be online 24-7-365 so greater self defence needs to be in there until Corp members can at least get on line in their time zone. To deal fairly with a given situation, at least that way you have a chance to have a reasonable balance in game, you know what I mean, 'the balance' you seem to advertise and hold in front of everyone on a big banner every time you change stuff.
This game is not tailored for the "Randoms" that logon once every 6 months nor should it. Since they've been the death of every MMO since 1998. Now you do have a couple tools at your disposal. One is called corp notiications, the other is Hiring a merc corp or make friends in other timezone to organze a defense.
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:12:00 -
[470] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:gifter Penken wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:theman428 wrote:Amber Solaire wrote:Correct me if I`m wrong
If more people decide to use stations for safety, won`t this slow down overall production, thus making a lot of CCP`s great ideas the reverse of an improvement to Industry?
no it will just make it more expensive for those seeking slots More expense=less people can afford to do it=reduction of profits=no point trying to produce any more (by newer players) That is not any improvement at all I suspect you will see a near equilibrium established where the high sec station slot prices increase to the point that the hassle of running a high sec alt corp with a POS to do research become profitable enough for people to do it. What you are NOT going to see is the intended "people putting expensive BPOs into low/null sec POS then losing them to attack". In earlier response, CCP already mentioned realizing they need to do something about offline POSes holding moons. Let's see if they come up with a good solution to that. And what happens when some griefer corp, who is always looking for industrial corps to attack. spends a couple billion on small POS's, anchors them, then deadzones a few systems, and says "come at us". When there are very few moons available to put up POS's at in high sec, that is going to create a massive demand for station mfg, and then this huge cost is incurred by the majority of the player base, while those that work with the griefing corps, well, they get a POS available , and a massive cost advantage over those forced to use the station mfg. Brilliant system. Null sec game mechanics come en masse to high sec. I was right, the PoCo's were just the first of many steps to ruin high sec industry.
|
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
123
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:12:00 -
[471] - Quote
With Infinite slots coming up on Stations, does this mean the 30 day cap will be removed? Since Industrialists are no longer hogging the slots for others, might as well remove the hard cap since there is no risk just costs in npc stations, or risk in outposts based on how long you decided to let the BP cook for. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2654
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:12:00 -
[472] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: Considering how quick and easy it will be to move BPC's via shuttle several jumps in any direction from a market hub this would be completely impractical. Do you have any concept of what it would cost, or more importantly the time that would be involved in set up and maintenance, trying to blanket every moon in every system within a 5 or 10 jump radius of Jita? We are talking a mere 5 or 10 minutes of travel time.
Not really a cause for concern.
Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up?
Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them.
And who is also talking about just BPC's being moved? If the typical player is forced to move his manufacturing 10 jumps out from a trade hub, he is incurring a huge opportunity cost in time, PLUS a massive risk moving stuff that extra distance.
This is just another attack on the casual high sec player.
I am so glad I shut down my indy accounts a couple years ago. That being said, I still do capital BPC copying in low sec. But the profitability of that is about to be ruined as well. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:15:00 -
[473] - Quote
Please excuse the short replies, the forums ate the longer versions.
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:Something seems clearly wrong in your statements about supply and demand here. If as you say there is higher output for the T2 BPOs then either inventors will produce less or demand will increase. Demand increases when prices drop. Perhaps T2 inventors will merely have to accept a slightly smaller margin. What's wrong is that you read too much into it GÇö specifically, I'm not talking about demand at all. I'm saying that if BPO holders produce slightly more and inventors produce the same as ever, the difference in supply will be so small as to not have any appreciable effect.
It seems like you might be searching for the argument that the increase or decrease in production will not be measurable. Still you keep claiming that an increase in production from T2 BPO owners will not effect inventors with either volume or price. If it is not measurable then fine no worries, but supply and demand stands.
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:I can agree that we need to see the other changes. At the same time I think it is fine to note that we don't want to see an general increase in production from the T2 BPOs (without an increase in risk). As luck would have it, there is an increase in risk that goes along with it if they want to really make full use of that increased output potential.
If the variables of the situation require T2 BPOs to be risked in POSes for the increased value then I will happily call this situation well handled. If the copy system or other production means in stations end up increasing BPO value then the situation will have been made worse. We do not know the situation so we must wait. In the meantime it is fair to speculate by identifying this as a potential problem. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5581
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:16:00 -
[474] - Quote
Quote: What is the point in trying to nerf Invention? Failing to really understand the logic behind this change. Surely putting more power into the hands of T2 BPO holders is a bad thing.
I think you are completely overlooking how incredibly fast the process of invention will be. Most of your time is tied up waiting for slots to open up or for copies to be made. This will no longer be a factor... and you will benefit from this far more than the T2 BPO holder. 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. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1885
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:16:00 -
[475] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: And what happens when some griefer corp, who is always looking for industrial corps to attack. spends a couple billion on small POS's, anchors them, then deadzones a few systems, and says "come at us". When there are very few moons available to put up POS's at in high sec, that is going to create a massive demand for station mfg, and then this huge cost is incurred by the majority of the player base, while those that work with the griefing corps, well, they get a POS available , and a massive cost advantage over those forced to use the station mfg.
Brilliant system. Null sec game mechanics come en masse to high sec. I was right, the PoCo's were just the first of many steps to ruin high sec industry.
You caught on to us, our plan to take over all of highsec involves anchoring as many POS as we can, stressing GSOL to the breaking point. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Proof Highsec reward needs to be nerfed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
123
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:17:00 -
[476] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Considering how quick and easy it will be to move BPC's via shuttle several jumps in any direction from a market hub this would be completely impractical. Do you have any concept of what it would cost, or more importantly the time that would be involved in set up and maintenance, trying to blanket every moon in every system within a 5 or 10 jump radius of Jita? We are talking a mere 5 or 10 minutes of travel time.
Not really a cause for concern.
Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up? Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them. And who is also talking about just BPC's being moved? If the typical player is forced to move his manufacturing 10 jumps out from a trade hub, he is incurring a huge opportunity cost in time, PLUS a massive risk moving stuff that extra distance. This is just another attack on the casual high sec player. I am so glad I shut down my indy accounts a couple years ago. That being said, I still do capital BPC copying in low sec. But the profitability of that is about to be ruined as well.
Death to the Casuals... Especially the ones that complain with every single change to the game...
|
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:17:00 -
[477] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Considering how quick and easy it will be to move BPC's via shuttle several jumps in any direction from a market hub this would be completely impractical. Do you have any concept of what it would cost, or more importantly the time that would be involved in set up and maintenance, trying to blanket every moon in every system within a 5 or 10 jump radius of Jita? We are talking a mere 5 or 10 minutes of travel time.
Not really a cause for concern.
Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up? Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them. And who is also talking about just BPC's being moved? If the typical player is forced to move his manufacturing 10 jumps out from a trade hub, he is incurring a huge opportunity cost in time, PLUS a massive risk moving stuff that extra distance. This is just another attack on the casual high sec player. I am so glad I shut down my indy accounts a couple years ago. That being said, I still do capital BPC copying in low sec. But the profitability of that is about to be ruined as well.
how is it a ttack on the casual high sec player?
how is it going to take the profit form you?
what wrong with "griefer corps" it how the game is meant to player, war and fighting over indys |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1885
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:17:00 -
[478] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up?
Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them.
And who is also talking about just BPC's being moved? If the typical player is forced to move his manufacturing 10 jumps out from a trade hub, he is incurring a huge opportunity cost in time, PLUS a massive risk moving stuff that extra distance.
This is just another attack on the casual high sec player.
I am so glad I shut down my indy accounts a couple years ago. That being said, I still do capital BPC copying in low sec. But the profitability of that is about to be ruined as well.
POCOs don't require fuel. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Proof Highsec reward needs to be nerfed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:17:00 -
[479] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up?
Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them.
Let's see if CCP comes up with a way of dealing with offline high sec POS. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20785
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:18:00 -
[480] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up? If they don't fuel them up, they will lose them very very quickly. As in [SLOPS] GÇö a 4-ppl indy corp GÇö can get rid of half a dozen of them without any problem whatsoever.
Quote:Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them. GǪand get absolutely nothing out of it. So why would they do it?
Quote:This is just another attack on the casual high sec player. This has pretty much zero impact on casual high-sec players. 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. |
|
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:20:00 -
[481] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote: Let's see if CCP comes up with a way of dealing with offline high sec POS.
just war dec them, dosn't take long to do, i have done it many times... solo... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20785
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:22:00 -
[482] - Quote
Kadl wrote:It seems like you might be searching for the argument that the increase or decrease in production will not be measurable. Still you keep claiming that an increase in production from T2 BPO owners will not effect inventors with either volume or price. No. I haven't claimed either of those. You're confusing production with demand, somehow.
If BPO holders produce more, this does not in any way affect how much inventors can produce. They simply can't. There is no connection or correlation between the two. Moreover, BPO holders produce so little that a marginal increase in their output from the BPOs is not going to affect the price in any significant way. You'd see the same variance from just a handful of inventors deciding to pick a different product this particular month. 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. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
348
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:23:00 -
[483] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up?
Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them.
And who is also talking about just BPC's being moved? If the typical player is forced to move his manufacturing 10 jumps out from a trade hub, he is incurring a huge opportunity cost in time, PLUS a massive risk moving stuff that extra distance.
This is just another attack on the casual high sec player.
I am so glad I shut down my indy accounts a couple years ago. That being said, I still do capital BPC copying in low sec. But the profitability of that is about to be ruined as well.
It is called a courier contract. I use them exclusively to have things moved in highsec, with appropriate collateral. I pay darn good, too -- >500k / jump. Outsourcing the risk is absolutely worth the minor decrease in profit to me, not to mention the fact that I don't, y'know, have to move it myself.
I've had more than one courier get suicide ganked, too.
It is a little strange that you just happen to be doing whatever economic activity that is being affected in every single dev blog. Either you are a prolific eve player, with his fingers in nearly every pie, or you're lying. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
82
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:23:00 -
[484] - Quote
I'm mostly annoyed that I'm going to have to either move or spread out. I found a nice out of the way system with a manufacturing station and available moons where freight cost to a hub was reasonable. Took all the POCOs for myself, consolidated all my operations. manufacturing, research, and PI into one spot and one corp office. But of course there are no lab slots within several jumps, because I didn't need them.
Now I'll have to put my BPOs either in my POS or in a different system. Then I'll have to plan ahead and make BPCs and move them to wherever they need to be for manufacturing. Whichever I choose, that means more spreadsheets and more thinking ahead about what I intend to make because I can't just simply produce/research/copyinvent from BPOs sitting in my consolidated corp office on-demand anymore. I don't fully utilize my POS as it is because I'm lazy and inefficient already; I don't plan out my manufacturing far enough in advance to be intelligently making BPC's and moving them around. The convenience of having everything in one spot where I could just "industry" on a reactive, hobby scale was more than worth the reduced profits for me. I still came out ahead, but I was never min/maxing this stuff.
After the changes... meh. Sure, I can find a new system with the 0.8+ landrush, but it won't have my factory PI planets/POCO's there. I could ferry BPCs from some other system or ferry BPOs to/from my POS in my current location, but that means I'll have to spend time, not to ferry things around but to THINK about what needs to be ferried around. I could manufacture at the POS, but I doubt a small will have the fitting for it and anyway, there goes the convenience of a gigantic station corp hangar stockpile. I'll probably have to plan head and make BPC's, which sounds annoying. The convenience of consolidation was worth a lot. Honestly I'll probably just liquidate... the thought of re-locating and sorting out BPC planning beyond invention and whatnot is just not very appealing.
Yeah, I'm just whining. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:23:00 -
[485] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Death to the Casuals... Especially the ones that complain with every single change to the game...
I know this is somewhat hyperbole, but death to casual players would be death to EVE. For a presentation a few years back, I think I recall the number being that in any given month, only 20% of accounts appear on a kill mail. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2657
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:25:00 -
[486] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up?
Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them.
Let's see if CCP comes up with a way of dealing with offline high sec POS.
Before this mess in implemented, or in 2015? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Doc McCoy
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:25:00 -
[487] - Quote
Maybe I'm alone in reading "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space" meaning that we will be able to anchor them places other than moons. That would really rock, but I'm guessing that's not what the dev blog meant. |
Inspiration
133
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:25:00 -
[488] - Quote
I think I like most of what is in the blog!
Have to give it a bit more time to process tho, more detail will be available when the next blog arrives.
Any ETA on that one?
I am serious! |
Marsha Mallow
220
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:26:00 -
[489] - Quote
Firstly, thanks for finally looking at this. I don't care how convoluted it is and how much haggling has to be done, sorting industry is so overdue I'll be happy with anything.
Basic responses to the core stuff:
- Cleaning Market groups - yup, looks fine
- Stopping the damage - ditto. You need to make it clearer on the blog that existing RAM/RDb will be replaced at the increased ratio as it's being repeatedly asked here. Also consider mentioning you will look at the volume.
- Extra Materials, the fifth wheel - *snort* about time :P
- Removing station traffic jams, one slot at a time - some thoughts below, overall yep
- Back into the structure, part deux - iterating on POS without commiting to a proper POS revamp is only going to cause a headache, but OK for now - further comments below
- This is not even my final form! - looks very nice (I like the fact you appear to be able to minimise the pretty picture to get back to a list if you prefer.)
Some of the major concerns I'm seeing so far and some suggestions
NPC Standings
- Allow a modifier to instal rates based upon NPC corp and faction standings. Doesn't need to be anything massive, but why not implement it in a similar way to trading standings modifiers.
- This one is a bit extreme, and I fully expect it to be completely disregarded, but... Why does this new system preserve the no-risk element for those who instal jobs in station rather than a POS? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Perhaps a new skill for high standing alts should be the ability to see who is installing what in NPC stations, with varying tiers of info tied to standings. That way if certain systems do get clogged up with particular manufacturers and researchers, players have the ability to find out who it is and dec them. v0v might be fun.
Removal of the ability to remote copy/manufacture in POS This is actually a pain in the arse for anyone doing bulk copying, invention or SC building. Looking at the dev blog schedule it might be addressed later on so you can have the benefit of the doubt - for now - but please take on board feedback. I can see slots in stations being gobbled up by copiers, creating a baseline cost for every other activity. Not entirely sure that's fair given you are adding a deliberate extra step in the process.
- Consider removing copying altogether from the cost scheme initially to see how the market/playerbase react
- Add the ability to copy an additional 10-11 lines in a mirror of existing research skills - otherwise you condemn people to waste additional alts on copying
- I'm not doing myself any favours here as I have around 65k BPC copies which I suspect will be worthless in a few weeks - but please can you clarify: if changes are made to copy rates which result in additional copies on max run BPCs will these be retrospectively applied to existing copies. Consider this one carefully please or you'll screw the existing BPC market and anyone heavily invested in it. No, we don't deserve an i-win button for having massive stockpiles, but we don't deserve to see them spectacularly devalued overnight by those who didn't spend years with unlimited copy slots.
Teams I have no idea what that is but it looks the most intriguing and damn you for saving it til last! A lot of questions being asked right now are about the loss of ability to lock down items - but the ability to indy in groups is so overlooked I'm quite pleased to even see "teams" mentioned. If it ties into changes to corp roles in any way, you'll be onto a winner. I'd love to see something similar to that interface for corp/alliance management.
Looking forward to the next blogs! - |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5582
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:26:00 -
[490] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Considering how quick and easy it will be to move BPC's via shuttle several jumps in any direction from a market hub this would be completely impractical. Do you have any concept of what it would cost, or more importantly the time that would be involved in set up and maintenance, trying to blanket every moon in every system within a 5 or 10 jump radius of Jita? We are talking a mere 5 or 10 minutes of travel time.
Not really a cause for concern.
Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up? Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them. And who is also talking about just BPC's being moved? If the typical player is forced to move his manufacturing 10 jumps out from a trade hub, he is incurring a huge opportunity cost in time, PLUS a massive risk moving stuff that extra distance. This is just another attack on the casual high sec player. I am so glad I shut down my indy accounts a couple years ago. That being said, I still do capital BPC copying in low sec. But the profitability of that is about to be ruined as well. Yes they did, and the PoCo system (and the market activity fueled by them) is thriving.
CCP has already stated they will address the issues of abandoned POS removal, and if they aren't abandoned they need to be maintained (and cost accordingly). So how many greifer corps (as you so inaccurately put it) get off on maintaining a network that would need to include literally 100's of POS's to be an effective blockade?
Lastly, why on earth would blanketing dozens of systems with POS's affect manufacturing in stations other than the trade hub one wit? Unless you choose to manufacture at a POS simply move a couple of jumps to a less expensive system and manufacture there in an NPC station.
This is one of your further stretches my friend. 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. |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:26:00 -
[491] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I think you are completely overlooking how incredibly fast the process of invention will be. Most of your time is tied up waiting for slots to open up or for copies to be made. This will no longer be a factor... and you will benefit from this far more than the T2 BPO holder.
There will no longer be slots. There will be a different system. We do not know that new system. It could combine all of the industrial activities together so you might be waiting for manufacturing in order to copy. We don't know yet. The copy speed increase will be nice, and may counter other issues. We don't know yet. Given what we do know it is fair to raise the potential of T2 BPOs increasing their market share. It is also fair to suggest the ways that invention might be increase vs T2 BPOs. With those potentials noted we can be prepared to review the remaining information. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
1097
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:27:00 -
[492] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Bear in mind the difference between spending 5 days mining your own materials, and 5 minutes ferrying your BPC's in a shuttle a few jumps.
However, human nature being what it is, this could well promote the emergence of new local trade hubs... which would be a plus.
Ferrying your BPCs in your shuttle a few jumps to what? manufacture at 14% of cost? 10%? Even 4%?
This is going to drive manufacturing out of the hubs. There are only so many moons in the trade hub systems. The biggest of those systems, Jita, is going to be off limits. I'm guessing that the POS slots in Amarr will become even more hotly contested, raising the effective price of those further.
So, slightly revised: the net effect will be the creation of walled cities. The central system will be largely taken up by king-of-the-hill alliances and coalitions, with lesser but still significant powers taking up adjacent and nearby systems. Then, the "wall," or ring, defined by the balance between cost-to-manufacture and cost-to-freight. This general system will replicate itself fractally across New Eden, scaling with the size of the central hub. Outside of those will be essentially random, low-volume noise with the occasional superhighway cutting through to get goods from one major hub to another.
It has the potential to diversify the landscape somewhat, and the systems around the biggest rings may see a lot of PVP activity, which will decrease rapidly as you approach the central hub (except for indy gankers in pipes, of course--but even they might find themselves policed if they interfere with a major alliance's logistics). Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Inspiration
133
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:27:00 -
[493] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Death to the Casuals... Especially the ones that complain with every single change to the game...
I know this is somewhat hyperbole, but death to casual players would be death to EVE. For a presentation a few years back, I think I recall the number being that in any given month, only 20% of accounts appear on a kill mail.
I don't see how you can conclude from this that the 80% are casual players. Maybe they mission, mine, do industry, or what else that does not involve kill mails. I am serious! |
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
2907
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:28:00 -
[494] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:This is just another attack on the casual high sec player. we don't like to think of it as an attack. it's just ensuring that the efforts of the 'casual player' are directed towards a greater purpose. think of it simply as organising players into stratas, with 'casual highseccers' working as a team under the direction of project leaders associated with some of the larger non-highsec bodies of players. we'll be targeting players who are not currently working within this structure for reassignment to more productive duties towards a common goal. |
Dorna Loone
Dark Star Demolition
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:29:00 -
[495] - Quote
With no, hard-to-grind, Corp standing requirement to obtain before setting up a Hi-Sec POS, I can see many of these absentee POS Owners getting a wardec soon after the patch hits to clear the space.
However, from what I've seen so far, there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in putting one up anyway post-patch as infinite slots for everything are available somewhere in stations and all you need to do is move (research particularly) to quieter / less used systems to keep the cost down. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2658
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:30:00 -
[496] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up?
Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them.
And who is also talking about just BPC's being moved? If the typical player is forced to move his manufacturing 10 jumps out from a trade hub, he is incurring a huge opportunity cost in time, PLUS a massive risk moving stuff that extra distance.
This is just another attack on the casual high sec player.
I am so glad I shut down my indy accounts a couple years ago. That being said, I still do capital BPC copying in low sec. But the profitability of that is about to be ruined as well.
It is called a courier contract. I use them exclusively to have things moved in highsec, with appropriate collateral. I pay darn good, too -- >500k / jump. Outsourcing the risk is absolutely worth the minor decrease in profit to me, not to mention the fact that I don't, y'know, have to move it myself. I've had more than one courier get suicide ganked, too. It is a little strange that you just happen to be doing whatever economic activity that is being affected in every single dev blog. Either you are a prolific eve player, with his fingers in nearly every pie, or you're lying.
Um.....look at my corp history. I have done all these things, and yeah, I do play a lot of Eve, or done it one time or another. So yeah, I can comment on the impact of these changes.
oh, and an aside, I am OK with venturing into low sec (FW zones, plus through the old PL staging area) to pick up BPC's. I always accepted that risk since I shut down my POS. But now the cost of copying is going way way up, and the risk remains the same. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:30:00 -
[497] - Quote
Sad MonkeySpanker wrote:gifter Penken wrote: ... The new "scale price to usage" price mechanism for slots is likely going ito make copy slots prohibitively expensive. The alt corp with large POS is going to be the cheaper alternative.
They did mention Risk-Reward....
Except there is no real risk. A heavily hardened large high sec POS is virtually bullet proof.
It isn't risk, it is the hassle of having to set up the alt corp, set up and run the POS, crank out all the BPCs.
All hassle, virtually no risk, a little reward.... a little extra demand and profit for ice miners. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20788
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:34:00 -
[498] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Um.....look at my corp history. I have done all these things, and yeah, I do play a lot of Eve, or done it one time or another. So yeah, I can comment on the impact of these changes. Your track record of being wrong about almost everything you comment on suggests otherwise, as does your insistence on assigning intentions where none exist and your obvious confusion about even very basic mechanics and behaviours, which is the real source of the imagined problems you keep envisioning. 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. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:34:00 -
[499] - Quote
Doc McCoy wrote:Maybe I'm alone in reading "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space" meaning that we will be able to anchor them places other than moons. That would really rock, but I'm guessing that's not what the dev blog meant.
I hope its the way you and I both read it. Not requiring standings and not needing to be at a moon goes with the whole 'Empires losing control' thing
I'm also hoping they've sneakily built a group of deployable structures that replace towers (but still use PI to build of course). I look forward to standing up my first tower (or equivalent) :) |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5582
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:35:00 -
[500] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I think you are completely overlooking how incredibly fast the process of invention will be. Most of your time is tied up waiting for slots to open up or for copies to be made. This will no longer be a factor... and you will benefit from this far more than the T2 BPO holder. There will no longer be slots. There will be a different system. We do not know that new system. It could combine all of the industrial activities together so you might be waiting for manufacturing in order to copy. We don't know yet. The copy speed increase will be nice, and may counter other issues. We don't know yet. Given what we do know it is fair to raise the potential of T2 BPOs increasing their market share. It is also fair to suggest the ways that invention might be increase vs T2 BPOs. With those potentials noted we can be prepared to review the remaining information. Indeed, just keep in mind that any benefit in time that a T2 BPO owner is likely to see will be far more beneficial to the Invention specialist, considering all the different steps that are required in Invention and the scale on which it is usually done. 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. |
|
DoAsYouAreBid
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:35:00 -
[501] - Quote
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).
Anywhere?
What does that mean? In a safe?
At the Sun?
1000km off a station?
I know it's a stupid question but that needs tidying up or clarifying.
D-Scan will become a useless worthless piece of cack if pos can be placed anywhere |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
356
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:37:00 -
[502] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Querns wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Right, just like how goons and RvB didn't blanket how many systems with their PoCo's in a matter of days? And as for maintenance on these POS's, who said anything about fueling them up?
Some of these griefer corps spend billions on war decs. Now they just spend it on deadzoning systems and wait for the war decs to come to them.
And who is also talking about just BPC's being moved? If the typical player is forced to move his manufacturing 10 jumps out from a trade hub, he is incurring a huge opportunity cost in time, PLUS a massive risk moving stuff that extra distance.
This is just another attack on the casual high sec player.
I am so glad I shut down my indy accounts a couple years ago. That being said, I still do capital BPC copying in low sec. But the profitability of that is about to be ruined as well.
It is called a courier contract. I use them exclusively to have things moved in highsec, with appropriate collateral. I pay darn good, too -- >500k / jump. Outsourcing the risk is absolutely worth the minor decrease in profit to me, not to mention the fact that I don't, y'know, have to move it myself. I've had more than one courier get suicide ganked, too. It is a little strange that you just happen to be doing whatever economic activity that is being affected in every single dev blog. Either you are a prolific eve player, with his fingers in nearly every pie, or you're lying. Um.....look at my corp history. I have done all these things, and yeah, I do play a lot of Eve, or done it one time or another. So yeah, I can comment on the impact of these changes. oh, and an aside, I am OK with venturing into low sec (FW zones, plus through the old PL staging area) to pick up BPC's. I always accepted that risk since I shut down my POS. But now the cost of copying is going way way up, and the risk remains the same. Sure, but you always mention (INSERT ECONOMIC ACTIVITY HERE) in the present tense.
If you had said, "at one time in my storied eve experience I had copied capital BPOs in lowsec," repeated for every single eve economic activity, especially the ones that are being changed at the time, I'd be more inclined to believe you, but expecting me to believe that you do every single one of these activities all at once stretches your credibility pretty far. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
589
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:38:00 -
[503] - Quote
DoAsYouAreBid wrote: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). Anywhere? What does that mean? In a safe? At the Sun? 1000km off a station? I know it's a stupid question but that needs tidying up or clarifying. D-Scan will become a useless worthless piece of cack if pos can be placed anywhere
No, they still need to be anchored at moons. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:39:00 -
[504] - Quote
I have a couple of questions and comments about the changes, but over all the look really good.
Firstly how do you intend to address invention and the to make it less clunky without totally breaking it with these changes. In the current pos system if I can't run jobs remotely from a station I need to go to a POS to run the jobs which locks down a toon to the system as the cycle times are only 1.25 hours, do you intend to streamline this?
Secondly I think that a hard cap of 14% is faaaar to low, the fee's as they stand right now are a joke compared to the cost of fueling a pos per slot. The current prices even at 500% its almost equal the cost per hour to run a job in a reasonably fit pos.
Lastly while we're changing copying times I'd like to see T2 BPO copy times remain where they are, if they become more viable then invention you will likely see that system in its current state fizzle out really really quickly. People who got lucky in the T2 BPO lottery already have piles of money, there is absolutely no need to line their pockets even more (imo they should all be done away with to make it fair but oh the rivers that would be cried if you did that). |
Inspiration
133
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:40:00 -
[505] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Sad MonkeySpanker wrote:gifter Penken wrote: ... The new "scale price to usage" price mechanism for slots is likely going ito make copy slots prohibitively expensive. The alt corp with large POS is going to be the cheaper alternative.
They did mention Risk-Reward.... Except there is no real risk. A heavily hardened large high sec POS is virtually bullet proof. It isn't risk, it is the hassle of having to set up the alt corp, set up and run the POS, crank out all the BPCs. All hassle, virtually no risk, a little reward.... a little extra demand and profit for ice miners.
Whomever told you that a hardened high sec POS is bulletproof was lying. Even if it fits some turrets and lots of EW, undefended it is a sitting duck, going down in a few hours.
Think Long range sentry drones from 2 moderate groups of bonus-ed battleships. Large shield buffers and maybe a few logistics to top it off and go watch a movie. POS defenses will never on their own attack the drones, so it is just a matter of time before an attacker wins. Such a fleet would even be able to defend itself against a few active defenders quite well due to the range the groups can cover each other! I am serious! |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
589
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:41:00 -
[506] - Quote
Halia Thorak wrote:I have a couple of questions and comments about the changes, but over all the look really good.
Firstly how do you intend to address invention and the to make it less clunky without totally breaking it with these changes. In the current pos system if I can't run jobs remotely from a station I need to go to a POS to run the jobs which locks down a toon to the system as the cycle times are only 1.25 hours, do you intend to streamline this?
Secondly I think that a hard cap of 14% is faaaar to low, the fee's as they stand right now are a joke compared to the cost of fueling a pos per slot. The current prices even at 500% its almost equal the cost per hour to run a job in a reasonably fit pos.
Lastly while we're changing copying times I'd like to see T2 BPO copy times remain where they are, if they become more viable then invention you will likely see that system in its current state fizzle out really really quickly. People who got lucky in the T2 BPO lottery already have piles of money, there is absolutely no need to line their pockets even more (imo they should all be done away with to make it fair but oh the rivers that would be cried if you did that).
You will be able to install invention jobs remotely. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Marsha Mallow
220
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:41:00 -
[507] - Quote
Does the removal of slots mean that labs are now worthless and you can just have one per POS? :P
If so, why shouldn't heavy industrialists reduce or even downsize the number of towers they have - provided the cost of manufacturing balances out against the fuel for additional towers? The cost of a single small tower with one lab you can install unlimited jobs in has to outweigh 5 large deathstars with 12 labs on, or am I missing something? - |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:42:00 -
[508] - Quote
Querns wrote: If you had said, "at one time in my storied eve experience I had copied capital BPOs in lowsec," repeated for every single eve economic activity, especially the ones that are being changed at the time, I'd be more inclined to believe you, but expecting me to believe that you do every single one of these activities all at once stretches your credibility pretty far.
Actually it depends on the scale of activity too. I am just over 6 months since clonebirth and do manufacture, explot, invention, tech II production, mining and PI on a daily basis. Nothing full industrial scale as that would bore me personally but enough to give me variety. How much of each activity someone performs is simply a matter of how much time they have to invest in EvE. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:43:00 -
[509] - Quote
Dorna Loone wrote:With no, hard-to-grind, Corp standing requirement to obtain before setting up a Hi-Sec POS, I can see many of these absentee POS Owners getting a wardec soon after the patch hits to clear the space.
However, from what I've seen so far, there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in putting one up anyway post-patch as infinite slots for everything are available somewhere in stations and all you need to do is move (research particularly) to quieter / less used systems to keep the cost down.
Just like there is no place with open research slots now, there will not be a place with cheap slots post change.
Prices will riase until they reach teh level where it makes it cost effective to have an alt corp with a high sec POS.
Lots more hassle. Liittle extra risk. Little extra reward.
The change is NOT going to have the intended consequenc (BPOs getting destroyed/captured in POS bash). It will just be a major pain in the rear to supply the BPCs that will be used for the actual construction.
This is the Bad Complexity that the dev blog mentions they want to get rid of. Instead, they create a basket load of it..
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20790
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:44:00 -
[510] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Does the removal of slots mean that labs are now worthless and you can just have one per POS? :P
If so, why shouldn't heavy industrialists reduce or even downsize the number of towers they have - provided the cost of manufacturing balances out against the fuel for additional towers? The cost of a single small tower with one lab you can install unlimited jobs in has to outweigh 5 large deathstars with 12 labs on, or am I missing something? I expect that the more labs you have, the lower your congestion fees will be. If you try to stick 60 jobs into an array that was balanced around holding 6, the mechanics will do nasty things to your profitability. 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. |
|
DoAsYouAreBid
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:44:00 -
[511] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:DoAsYouAreBid wrote: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). Anywhere? What does that mean? In a safe? At the Sun? 1000km off a station? I know it's a stupid question but that needs tidying up or clarifying. D-Scan will become a useless worthless piece of cack if pos can be placed anywhere No, they still need to be anchored at moons.
Tyvm for answering so quickly. |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
194
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:46:00 -
[512] - Quote
Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
147
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:47:00 -
[513] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:It seems like you might be searching for the argument that the increase or decrease in production will not be measurable. Still you keep claiming that an increase in production from T2 BPO owners will not effect inventors with either volume or price. No. I haven't claimed either of those. You're confusing production with demand, somehow. If BPO holders produce more, this does not in any way affect how much inventors can produce. They simply can't. There is no connection or correlation between the two. Moreover, BPO holders produce so little that a marginal increase in their output from the BPOs is not going to affect the price in any significant way. You'd see the same variance from just a handful of inventors deciding to pick a different product this particular month.
Now it appears you are just being contrary. The issue is obviously not how much can be produced, but rather how much will be produced, and sold. How much the BPO holders produced effects how much inventors will produce because sane inventors will look to the market and decide what is worth their time to produce. As the two production streams are related via the market we are again in a situation of supply and demand. Changing your words from "can" to "will" allows us to get at the real situation.
It is entirely clear to me that your claims are just as my first sentence states. You believe that the changes will not be measurable. I have no issues with that claim since it does not violate supply and demand as you seem at times to be claiming. |
Marsha Mallow
221
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:48:00 -
[514] - Quote
Tippia wrote:I expect that the more labs you have, the lower your congestion fees will be. If you try to stick 60 jobs into an array that was balanced around holding 6, the mechanics will do nasty things to your profitability. Ye, mebe. I can see paying more to maintain fewer towers being an incentive tho, even if it does eat into your margins. I hate these speculation wailnaughts, and I suspect the devs really enjoy watching us flail about screeching.
SHOW US THE NUMBERS!
STOP TEASING US! - |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
689
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:49:00 -
[515] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:No, they still need to be anchored at moons. You should do away with all of this in one sweep. Remove insurance. |
Will Dirconi
Resource Kings
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:49:00 -
[516] - Quote
What about researching in wormhole space? |
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
2909
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:49:00 -
[517] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS.
test subje "staff" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20792
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:50:00 -
[518] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS. What benefits you more?
GÇó Having, say, 30 slots per tower so you constantly have to keep 3 of them up just because there are occasional periods where you need 90 slots in total, orGǪ GÇó Having, say 1 tower that you can keep running constantly, where there is no maximum number of slots and where you can squeeze in all 90 jobs at once when you need to for a slight fee, but where your regular 30 jobs won't really cost anything? 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. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:50:00 -
[519] - Quote
Inspiration wrote: Think Long range sentry drones from 2 moderate groups of bonus-ed battleships. Large shield buffers and maybe a few logistics to top it off and go watch a movie. POS defenses will never on their own attack the drones, so it is just a matter of time before an attacker wins. Such a fleet would even be able to defend itself against a few active defenders quite well due to the range the groups can cover each other!
I may have to do the math again, but last time I read the numbers, it was somethign like 500 battleships doing max DPS for 10 hours to reinforce a heavily hardened large.
Of course, your "couple hours" may be correct as well, if you are showing up with thousands of battleships.
Anyone have numbers on EHP of a dkstar vs max DPS on BS?
You also seem to assume the alts would not have POS gunner skills. Sentries could get very expensive gettng poofed by POS guns. |
Eleisa Joringer
Les chips electriques
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:51:00 -
[520] - Quote
So basically anyone with a handful of skill points can now set up a pos in HS. i can see one million of 1 member corps having poses soon. Alt age ! |
|
Lelira Cirim
EVE University Ivy League
138
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:52:00 -
[521] - Quote
Magnus Cortex wrote:Paul Otichoda wrote:So those 6 months grinding standings for a high sec POS has been wasted? Its not wasted, it let you have a highsec pos when they required standings... Yup. Basically sunk costs. The empire faction standings mechanics for player corps are terribad. This clears the way for new ideas to make those values meaningful again, if they even stay. Thanks to EACS even jump clone standings are kinda unnecessary, but that's also a player run service that is not always guaranteed to exist. Making better mechanics is the way to go forward. Do not actively tank my patience. |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
194
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:52:00 -
[522] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS. What benefits you more? GÇó Having, say, 30 slots per tower so you constantly have to keep 3 of them up just because there are occasional periods where you need 90 slots in total, orGǪ GÇó Having, say 1 tower that you can keep running constantly, where there is no maximum number of slots and where you can squeeze in all 90 jobs at once when you need to for a slight fee, but where your regular 30 jobs won't really cost anything?
The annoying part about posting with you is that in every other thread I read with you in I say "Tippia is so right."
I've literally been doing that for years.
Now I'm the one getting all butthurt I refuse to admit you're absolutely right and it conflicts with like three years of reading your posts and nodding and thinking "Damn right." TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:53:00 -
[523] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS. So you think you shouldn't have to pay someone for doing industry in orbit above someone else's planet... in someone else's space?
If you're in Null you might have a point, however you are assuming those lab techs work for free, and don't charge extra for working overtime.
But actually, the real answer would be "game mechanic", it's as simple as that.
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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20794
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:54:00 -
[524] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Now it appears you are just being contrary. No, I'm just not accepting your notion that the production capability of BPO holders somehow affects the production capability of inventors, seeing as how they are not in any way related. I'm also not buying the notion that the inventors' prices will be affected in any major way since the production increase from the BPOs amounts to market noise compared to how much inventors produce.
Quote:The issue is obviously not how much can be produced, but rather how much will be produced, and sold. Maybe so, but that's not what you said. And again, BPOs aren't particularly significant to the supply of anything where invention is profitable. It'll be lost in the noise of inventors changing their item production from one cycle to the next. 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. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
689
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:54:00 -
[525] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:The change is NOT going to have the intended consequenc (BPOs getting destroyed/captured in POS bash). It will just be a major pain in the rear to supply the BPCs that will be used for the actual construction.
This is the Bad Complexity that the dev blog mentions they want to get rid of. Instead, they create a basket load of it..
Yeah. That's my feeling too. The just replace on silly thing by another.
But let's wait and see what the other dev blogs have to tell us. Remove insurance. |
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
198
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:56:00 -
[526] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS. So you think you shouldn't have to pay someone for doing industry in orbit above someone else's planet... in someone else's space?
The same people you no longer need standings to? Are you kidding me?
TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
154
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:57:00 -
[527] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:gifter Penken wrote:Sad MonkeySpanker wrote:gifter Penken wrote: ... The new "scale price to usage" price mechanism for slots is likely going ito make copy slots prohibitively expensive. The alt corp with large POS is going to be the cheaper alternative.
They did mention Risk-Reward.... Except there is no real risk. A heavily hardened large high sec POS is virtually bullet proof. It isn't risk, it is the hassle of having to set up the alt corp, set up and run the POS, crank out all the BPCs. All hassle, virtually no risk, a little reward.... a little extra demand and profit for ice miners. Whomever told you that a hardened high sec POS is bulletproof was lying. Even if it fits some turrets and lots of EW, undefended it is a sitting duck, going down in a few hours. Think Long range sentry drones from 2 moderate groups of bonus-ed battleships. Large shield buffers and maybe a few logistics to top it off and go watch a movie. POS defenses will never on their own attack the drones, so it is just a matter of time before an attacker wins. Such a fleet would even be able to defend itself against a few active defenders quite well due to the range the groups can cover each other!
What if CCP made it possible to launch bombs in empire.........
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
606
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:57:00 -
[528] - Quote
Eleisa Joringer wrote:So basically anyone with a handful of skill points can now set up a pos in HS. i can see one million of 1 member corps having poses soon. Alt age !
Why though? The entire reason for the POS restriction in high sec to be lifted is because they are going to be much less needed as research platforms. So if anything, I think a lot of people will be taking down their POS because 2 month long waiting lines in stations are going to be a thing of the past.
Now the challenge of effeciency is no longer to have a POS, but to find the most cost efficient station to do research at. Are you going to take that expensive station 1 jump away, or are you going to move your operation to that cheap station 16 jumps away and have a bigger profit margin? My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20794
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:57:00 -
[529] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS. So you think you shouldn't have to pay someone for doing industry in orbit above someone else's planet... in someone else's space? The same people you no longer need standings to? Are you kidding me? WeeellGǪ look at it this way: you no longer have to prove your loyalty to the empire GÇö cash will do just as fine.
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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:00:00 -
[530] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS. So you think you shouldn't have to pay someone for doing industry in orbit above someone else's planet... in someone else's space? The same people you no longer need standings to? Are you kidding me? There is no law that says the land lord has to like you to take your money for rent. 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. |
|
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
198
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:01:00 -
[531] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS. So you think you shouldn't have to pay someone for doing industry in orbit above someone else's planet... in someone else's space? The same people you no longer need standings to? Are you kidding me? WeeellGǪ look at it this way: you no longer have to prove your loyalty to the empire GÇö cash will do just as fine.
I actually typed
"The same people you no longer need standings to? Are you kidding me? So they deregulate the space and then charge you instead?"
and realised how absolutely logical that is, so deleted the second sentence and hoped no-one would notice.
I should have realised. Tippia is always right.
That said there are people who are going to be so hurt by these changes. I just hope the later dev blogs do something to fix that. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting |
Eleisa Joringer
Les chips electriques
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:05:00 -
[532] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Eleisa Joringer wrote:So basically anyone with a handful of skill points can now set up a pos in HS. i can see one million of 1 member corps having poses soon. Alt age ! Why though? The entire reason for the POS restriction in high sec to be lifted is because they are going to be much less needed as research platforms. So if anything, I think a lot of people will be taking down their POS because 2 month long waiting lines in stations are going to be a thing of the past. Now the challenge of effeciency is no longer to have a POS, but to find the most cost efficient station to do research at. Are you going to take that expensive station 1 jump away, or are you going to move your operation to that cheap station 16 jumps away and have a bigger profit margin?
you sir, have a good point. But i was talking about "camping spots " at moons . if someone camp your moon you would wardek them . but after the patch, they could umanchor the pos , give it to a mewly created alt in its own corp.
|
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:06:00 -
[533] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:Now it appears you are just being contrary. No, I'm just not accepting your notion that the production capability of BPO holders somehow affects the production capability of inventors, seeing as how they are not in any way related. I'm also not buying the notion that the inventors' prices will be affected in any major way since the production increase from the BPOs amounts to market noise compared to how much inventors produce. Quote:The issue is obviously not how much can be produced, but rather how much will be produced, and sold. Maybe so, but that's not what you said. And again, BPOs aren't particularly significant to the supply of anything where invention is profitable. It'll be lost in the noise of inventors changing their item production from one cycle to the next.
I think, perhaps, you have the cart before the horse.
Invention is profitable, where demand exceeds T2 BPO supply.
If you increaseT2 BPO supply by reducing copy time to below current manufacture time, you increase T2 BPO supply, This reduces the number of items where BPO supply is insufficent to meet demand, reducing the items that will be profitable to invent.
The profitability of being a T2 BPO holder comes when the demand exceeds T2 BPO supply. If you are simply battling other T2 BPO holders to meet demand, and you have no competative advantage over those T2 BPO holders, profits will be slim.
When demand exceeds T2 BPO supply, it becomes the invented supply that sets the price. Because a portion of the supply is being provided by invention, and invented items are so much more expensive to produce (because of invention cost and low ME) than T2 BPO, profit is much higher for T2 BPO holders.
So, while it may at first appear that increasing the supply of T2 items that can be produce via T2 BPO would increase profitability of those T2 BPOs... it is not necessarily the case. Some T2 items will still have demand that exceeds supply that can be met by T2 BPOs and those will become more profitable. Other are likely to shift from invention being the price point, to BPO being the price point, and profit on those could decline.
|
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
311
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:08:00 -
[534] - Quote
Adellle Nadair wrote:Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. This is the worst single idea I have ever seen from a dev. DO NOT DO THIS CHANGE!!!!!!!!!! We already risk a large amount of isk in just having the labs/datacores/decryptors and all of the copies needed out at a pos. Forcing us to either risk a huge amount more than that, or move the bpos to other much more populated stations that are already overpopulated (that don't have corp offices available or available for anywhere near a reasonable price) and incur a high cost that will greatly reduce production profit or negate it all together, is a horrible change. You as devs do not understand the amount of bpos required to make copies for t2 invention. And you clearly don't understand the organization and the necessity of being able to efficiently access bpos and the time commitment that industry already takes. It is incredibly shortsighted and ignorant of you to assume that it is only a slight amount of isk that we will be risking. We use and need easy access to hundreds of bpos to make the copies we need to be able to do invention. Asking us to risk multiple billions in bpos is insane. And no, I know I don't have to keep all of the bpos I am not using at the pos. However, the addition of moving around the needed bpos from the station to the pos adds an additional step and organizational nightmare to an already complicated system. Because of the nature of industry NOTHING you do with the UI and other new features will change this. This change will also create an additional hassle organizational nightmare for players who need to find or move bpos around. Industry is already complicated enough without having to deal with moving all of the bpos around. DO NOT take away our ability to organize bpos in one central station corp office so multiple characters can easily have access to them and can quickly and efficiently install jobs. DO NOT make us do more work and take more time to do industry jobs. Another severely overlooked issue that this creates: This removes the ability of safely sharing bpos by locking them down in corp hanger in a station. BPOs can't be locked down at a pos. This change will limit how and where we can play severely. It forces people who want to play together to use certain systems and certain stations, to pay for spots at those stations and it practically makes setting up a pos a waste of time and effort, because it limits its usefulness. In the culture of eve (griefers/corp thieves/all) this change removes several much needed elements of safety that allow us to enjoy playing and interacting with a larger player base. If you have decided to do this, as is suggested by other statements in this dev blog, because you haven't worked out how to deal how the slot change affects pos mods, then DO NOT make this change until you come up with a better solution. Because this is NOT the way to make this change happen. POSes are expensive, take time, effort and a good amount of isk to maintain already. Forcing us to risk a considerable amount more and in doing so increase the amount of busy work that is required for doing industry is not a good change. I personally have been playing Eve for 5 and a half years. Industry is one part of the game that I greatly enjoy doing. If this change does go through I will have to seriously consider if it is worth it to keep paying for my 4 accounts. Many of my friends who like this element of the game are already talking about leaving because of this. I sincerely hope that you will not go through with this change and that the other forthcoming industry changes are much more intelligently and thoughtfully crafted than this. If not, you will be losing a large group of your paying customers.
This. I'm not planning to quit but if this change goes through you can bet your ass you will be shutting down most of the REAL industry corporations with REAL members as well as mass producers as the risk and effort will no longer be worth it. |
Buzz Dura
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:09:00 -
[535] - Quote
That is a hell of a DEVBLOG !!!!!!!!
A lot of good promises, a lot of questions raised but ....
WHERE ARE THE SPREADSHEETS !!???
Changes in copy time? how much -5% -20% ? new advanced skill reducing copy time ?
Removing the safety of remote job in POS with locked BPO in station .. well capital construction just became a hell of a choice... Just to manufacture a freighter, you put at risk 10x the value of it with BPO in POS... And Capital BPC with its 5 run limit is just zombie click fest...
Clearly, a big part of eve universe is now hungry of what going to be next !
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20795
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:13:00 -
[536] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:Changes in copy time? how much -5% -20% ? new advanced skill reducing copy time ? Oh god NOOOOooo0000oooGǪ I was going to be finished training this character in June. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:14:00 -
[537] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:Now it appears you are just being contrary. No, I'm just not accepting your notion that the production capability of BPO holders somehow affects the production capability of inventors, seeing as how they are not in any way related. I'm also not buying the notion that the inventors' prices will be affected in any major way since the production increase from the BPOs amounts to market noise compared to how much inventors produce. Quote:The issue is obviously not how much can be produced, but rather how much will be produced, and sold. Maybe so, but that's not what you said. And again, BPOs aren't particularly significant to the supply of anything where invention is profitable. It'll be lost in the noise of inventors changing their item production from one cycle to the next. I think, perhaps, you have the cart before the horse. Invention is profitable, where demand exceeds T2 BPO supply. If you increaseT2 BPO supply by reducing copy time to below current manufacture time, you increase T2 BPO supply, This reduces the number of items where BPO supply is insufficent to meet demand, reducing the items that will be profitable to invent. The profitability of being a T2 BPO holder comes when the demand exceeds T2 BPO supply. If you are simply battling other T2 BPO holders to meet demand, and you have no competative advantage over those T2 BPO holders, profits will be slim. When demand exceeds T2 BPO supply, it becomes the invented supply that sets the price. Because a portion of the supply is being provided by invention, and invented items are so much more expensive to produce (because of invention cost and low ME) than T2 BPO, profit is much higher for T2 BPO holders. So, while it may at first appear that increasing the supply of T2 items that can be produce via T2 BPO would increase profitability of those T2 BPOs... it is not necessarily the case. Some T2 items will still have demand that exceeds supply that can be met by T2 BPOs and those will become more profitable. Other are likely to shift from invention being the price point, to BPO being the price point, and profit on those could decline. You need to consider the extremely limited output supplied by T2 BPO's. For example, a well researched T2 cruiser BPO can build about 1 ship a day.
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. |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:14:00 -
[538] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Adellle Nadair wrote:Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. This is the worst single idea I have ever seen from a dev. DO NOT DO THIS CHANGE!!!!!!!!!! We already risk a large amount of isk in just having the labs/datacores/decryptors and all of the copies needed out at a pos. Forcing us to either risk a huge amount more than that, or move the bpos to other much more populated stations that are already overpopulated (that don't have corp offices available or available for anywhere near a reasonable price) and incur a high cost that will greatly reduce production profit or negate it all together, is a horrible change. You as devs do not understand the amount of bpos required to make copies for t2 invention. And you clearly don't understand the organization and the necessity of being able to efficiently access bpos and the time commitment that industry already takes. It is incredibly shortsighted and ignorant of you to assume that it is only a slight amount of isk that we will be risking. We use and need easy access to hundreds of bpos to make the copies we need to be able to do invention. Asking us to risk multiple billions in bpos is insane. And no, I know I don't have to keep all of the bpos I am not using at the pos. However, the addition of moving around the needed bpos from the station to the pos adds an additional step and organizational nightmare to an already complicated system. Because of the nature of industry NOTHING you do with the UI and other new features will change this. This change will also create an additional hassle organizational nightmare for players who need to find or move bpos around. Industry is already complicated enough without having to deal with moving all of the bpos around. DO NOT take away our ability to organize bpos in one central station corp office so multiple characters can easily have access to them and can quickly and efficiently install jobs. DO NOT make us do more work and take more time to do industry jobs. Another severely overlooked issue that this creates: This removes the ability of safely sharing bpos by locking them down in corp hanger in a station. BPOs can't be locked down at a pos. This change will limit how and where we can play severely. It forces people who want to play together to use certain systems and certain stations, to pay for spots at those stations and it practically makes setting up a pos a waste of time and effort, because it limits its usefulness. In the culture of eve (griefers/corp thieves/all) this change removes several much needed elements of safety that allow us to enjoy playing and interacting with a larger player base. If you have decided to do this, as is suggested by other statements in this dev blog, because you haven't worked out how to deal how the slot change affects pos mods, then DO NOT make this change until you come up with a better solution. Because this is NOT the way to make this change happen. POSes are expensive, take time, effort and a good amount of isk to maintain already. Forcing us to risk a considerable amount more and in doing so increase the amount of busy work that is required for doing industry is not a good change. I personally have been playing Eve for 5 and a half years. Industry is one part of the game that I greatly enjoy doing. If this change does go through I will have to seriously consider if it is worth it to keep paying for my 4 accounts. Many of my friends who like this element of the game are already talking about leaving because of this. I sincerely hope that you will not go through with this change and that the other forthcoming industry changes are much more intelligently and thoughtfully crafted than this. If not, you will be losing a large group of your paying customers. This. I'm not planning to quit but if this change goes through you can bet your ass you will be shutting down most of the REAL industry corporations with REAL members as well as mass producers as the risk and effort will no longer be worth it.
I have to agree if the profits dive as much as they will with this change, I can see a lot of the long time producers shutting shops as their isk/hour vs invested time will just plummet to a figure not worth their time. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5346
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:17:00 -
[539] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:Tippia wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS. What benefits you more? GÇó Having, say, 30 slots per tower so you constantly have to keep 3 of them up just because there are occasional periods where you need 90 slots in total, orGǪ GÇó Having, say 1 tower that you can keep running constantly, where there is no maximum number of slots and where you can squeeze in all 90 jobs at once when you need to for a slight fee, but where your regular 30 jobs won't really cost anything? The annoying part about posting with you is that in every other thread I read with you in I say "Tippia is so right." I've literally been doing that for years.
Maybe you have been wrong in your beliefs for years?
Tippia is a posting machine made to self promote as The Prophet of Being Right. Of course (s)he chooses obvious arguments, usually agrees with the established groupthink (because doing so, won't go against smart and powerful opponents) and generally with the currently winning train of thought.
You have been used.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:17:00 -
[540] - Quote
Halia Thorak wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:Adellle Nadair wrote:Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. This is the worst single idea I have ever seen from a dev. DO NOT DO THIS CHANGE!!!!!!!!!! We already risk a large amount of isk in just having the labs/datacores/decryptors and all of the copies needed out at a pos. Forcing us to either risk a huge amount more than that, or move the bpos to other much more populated stations that are already overpopulated (that don't have corp offices available or available for anywhere near a reasonable price) and incur a high cost that will greatly reduce production profit or negate it all together, is a horrible change. You as devs do not understand the amount of bpos required to make copies for t2 invention. And you clearly don't understand the organization and the necessity of being able to efficiently access bpos and the time commitment that industry already takes. It is incredibly shortsighted and ignorant of you to assume that it is only a slight amount of isk that we will be risking. We use and need easy access to hundreds of bpos to make the copies we need to be able to do invention. Asking us to risk multiple billions in bpos is insane. And no, I know I don't have to keep all of the bpos I am not using at the pos. However, the addition of moving around the needed bpos from the station to the pos adds an additional step and organizational nightmare to an already complicated system. Because of the nature of industry NOTHING you do with the UI and other new features will change this. This change will also create an additional hassle organizational nightmare for players who need to find or move bpos around. Industry is already complicated enough without having to deal with moving all of the bpos around. DO NOT take away our ability to organize bpos in one central station corp office so multiple characters can easily have access to them and can quickly and efficiently install jobs. DO NOT make us do more work and take more time to do industry jobs. Another severely overlooked issue that this creates: This removes the ability of safely sharing bpos by locking them down in corp hanger in a station. BPOs can't be locked down at a pos. This change will limit how and where we can play severely. It forces people who want to play together to use certain systems and certain stations, to pay for spots at those stations and it practically makes setting up a pos a waste of time and effort, because it limits its usefulness. In the culture of eve (griefers/corp thieves/all) this change removes several much needed elements of safety that allow us to enjoy playing and interacting with a larger player base. If you have decided to do this, as is suggested by other statements in this dev blog, because you haven't worked out how to deal how the slot change affects pos mods, then DO NOT make this change until you come up with a better solution. Because this is NOT the way to make this change happen. POSes are expensive, take time, effort and a good amount of isk to maintain already. Forcing us to risk a considerable amount more and in doing so increase the amount of busy work that is required for doing industry is not a good change. I personally have been playing Eve for 5 and a half years. Industry is one part of the game that I greatly enjoy doing. If this change does go through I will have to seriously consider if it is worth it to keep paying for my 4 accounts. Many of my friends who like this element of the game are already talking about leaving because of this. I sincerely hope that you will not go through with this change and that the other forthcoming industry changes are much more intelligently and thoughtfully crafted than this. If not, you will be losing a large group of your paying customers. This. I'm not planning to quit but if this change goes through you can bet your ass you will be shutting down most of the REAL industry corporations with REAL members as well as mass producers as the risk and effort will no longer be worth it. I have to agree if the profits dive as much as they will with this change, I can see a lot of the long time producers shutting shops as their isk/hour vs invested time will just plummet to a figure not worth their time. Or market prices will adjust (as they always do) to keep the activity just as profitable as it is now.... 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. |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
992
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:18:00 -
[541] - Quote
Excellent! Thank you CCP - I thoroughly approve of this expansion theme! Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Biterno Sintaph
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
70
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:20:00 -
[542] - Quote
You have already stated that nullsec stations with slot bonuses will be reworked. Can I also assume the Faction Warfare bonus of extra slots per station will be equivalently reworked? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5346
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:20:00 -
[543] - Quote
Mara Pahrdi wrote:gifter Penken wrote:The change is NOT going to have the intended consequenc (BPOs getting destroyed/captured in POS bash). It will just be a major pain in the rear to supply the BPCs that will be used for the actual construction.
This is the Bad Complexity that the dev blog mentions they want to get rid of. Instead, they create a basket load of it..
Yeah. That's my feeling too. The just replace on silly thing by another. But let's wait and see what the other dev blogs have to tell us.
No, you are both right.
It's now an established hi sec custom, to always go for the maximum AFK possibly coupled with the maximum safety.
The new changes impact on both, players will fear to lose the valuable BPOs so everything that has some value will be subject to a copy => produce process, adding 1 more step to the process.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
992
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:23:00 -
[544] - Quote
Cod oil is very good for you - lots of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. But remove extra materials anyway. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1336
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:25:00 -
[545] - Quote
alright
i had the time to read a bit deeper into this
i am VERY excited to say the least. those changes go exactly in the direction i want eve and indu to go.
most of the actual consequences are highly dependand on actual numbers. so yeah, gief numbers plx
i also REALLY want to see more information on the idea behind the team thingy. gief plx.
also dinsdale. GRRR Goons |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:27:00 -
[546] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote:gifter Penken wrote:The change is NOT going to have the intended consequenc (BPOs getting destroyed/captured in POS bash). It will just be a major pain in the rear to supply the BPCs that will be used for the actual construction.
This is the Bad Complexity that the dev blog mentions they want to get rid of. Instead, they create a basket load of it..
Yeah. That's my feeling too. The just replace on silly thing by another. But let's wait and see what the other dev blogs have to tell us. No, you are both right. It's now an established hi sec custom, to always go for the maximum AFK possibly coupled with the maximum safety. The new changes impact on both, players will fear to lose the valuable BPOs so everything that has some value will be subject to a copy => produce process, adding 1 more step to the process. Yes, you gain one step (if you chose to) to work from a POS, but will lose countless other steps and time sinks.
We'll see what the other blogs hold, but I'm pretty confident the end result will be the ability to manage all of your research and production related jobs from where ever you happen to be, and with a minimum number of mouse clicks (read batches of jobs)... all of which start immediately without waiting for a slot to open. 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. |
Marsha Mallow
223
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:29:00 -
[547] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:The annoying part about posting with you is that in every other thread I read with you in I say "Tippia is so right."
I've literally been doing that for years.
Maybe you have been wrong in your beliefs for years? Tippia is a posting machine made to self promote as The Prophet of Being Right. Of course (s)he chooses obvious arguments, usually agrees with the established groupthink (because doing so, won't go against smart and powerful opponents) and generally with the currently winning train of thought. You have been used. So are you, tbf - but both of you are quite nice so no need to get uppity about it :P One day, Trippia is going to drunkpost and cartwheel naked across the forums, just randomly making stuff up. Telling you.
In the meantime, it's entirely permissable to shuffle your feet and mutter "Whatever, mother". I bet even the devs do it. - |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:29:00 -
[548] - Quote
I have a feeling that the indy management is moving to a similar method to PI in that once you have your stations somewhere you will be able to manage them from anywhere. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
994
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:30:00 -
[549] - Quote
Can we please have a blueprint silo for POS instead of having to muck around with putting them in each lab? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
143
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:30:00 -
[550] - Quote
It sounds like there may no longer be a need to have high sec research POSes anymore ?
I'm not sure removing the standings requirement is a good idea. I expect NPC corps are next on the list to be removed ? |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:30:00 -
[551] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:The annoying part about posting with you is that in every other thread I read with you in I say "Tippia is so right."
I've literally been doing that for years.
Maybe you have been wrong in your beliefs for years? Tippia is a posting machine made to self promote as The Prophet of Being Right. Of course (s)he chooses obvious arguments, usually agrees with the established groupthink (because doing so, won't go against smart and powerful opponents) and generally with the currently winning train of thought. You have been used. So are you, tbf - but both of you are quite nice so no need to get uppity about it :P One day, Trippia is going to drunkpost and cartwheel naked across the forums, just randomly making stuff up. Telling you. In the meantime, it's entirely permissable to shuffle your feet and mutter "Whatever, mother". I bet even the devs do it. Tippia better never do that... that's MY job... 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. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1336
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:34:00 -
[552] - Quote
some things that i don't like:
BPCs:
some of them have really bad numbers that need to be adressed. restarting jobs every few hours in not acceptable. i can live with some kind of small penalty for combining BPCs or queuing them up (without requiring extra slots) but low run BPCs are not cool.
Removal of Standings:
You increased the importance of standings to the refinery formula but removed them from the POS completely ? meh. they should be relevant, but not for the actual pos, but for the upkeep cost (maybe more charters with lower standings ?)
BPCs part II:
I don't like the fact that working with BPC is better than working with BPOs. i really want to see a POS being killed for its blueprints. please reconsider this. maybe a small ME/PE penalty on BPCs ? GRRR Goons |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3049
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:34:00 -
[553] - Quote
If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:38:00 -
[554] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: The new changes impact on both, players will fear to lose the valuable BPOs so everything that has some value will be subject to a copy => produce process, adding 1 more step to the process.
Yes, you gain one step (if you chose to) to work from a POS, but will lose countless other steps and time sinks. We'll see what the other blogs hold, but I'm pretty confident the end result will be the ability to manage all of your research and production related jobs from where ever you happen to be, and with a minimum number of mouse clicks (read batches of jobs)... all of which start immediately without waiting for a slot to open.
My thought was focused on the quoted text talking about how the changes will basically push hi seccers into taking 1 step more. Nothing more, too little details know as of now to form a focused opinion. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tarikla
Projet Aurora
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:40:00 -
[555] - Quote
I have ONE major grip about all this :
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).
This change is killing the whole point of faction standings. The system was already not really great, for standings that takes weeks or even months of farming missions, all you had was the privilege of anchoring POS in High-Sec, and the 1 time BPC with very high standings.
There is an whole economy revolving around standing boosts and selling of corps with high standings. And you are throwing that out of the window completly. It wasn't hard to find someone with high standings to get you a corp or a boost, with a fee of course.
But now, you can anchor POS all the way up to 1.0 with no effort and an almost blank alt in a corp. What's the point of faction standings then ? Only some BPC, and the usual "if you go below -5 navy chase you" & "can't go higher than l1 mish if below -2" ? Both those things are easily avoided with the Diplomacy skill if you want. So basically, doing storyline missions, who requires an lenghty amount of time to get, only means that you gonna get a small goodie at the end. by the time you reach a BPC, you will certainly got *100 or even more it's value in regular missions.
I don't see any reasons now to do Storyline missions. Factions Standings are utterly useless right now, just for the sake of banalizing POS Usage. The already poor PVE side of Eve got dumbed down a little more. |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
163
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:40:00 -
[556] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Maybe you have been wrong in your beliefs for years?
Tippia is a posting machine made to self promote as The Prophet of Being Right. Of course (s)he chooses obvious arguments, usually agrees with the established groupthink (because doing so, won't go against smart and powerful opponents) and generally with the currently winning train of thought.
You have been used.
Been saying this literally for years although less eloquently. My faith in the mankind is restored.
Thank you VV
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:41:00 -
[557] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote: So are you, tbf - but both of you are quite nice so no need to get uppity about it :P One day, Trippia is going to drunkpost and cartwheel naked across the forums, just randomly making stuff up. Telling you.
In the meantime, it's entirely permissable to shuffle your feet and mutter "Whatever, mother". I bet even the devs do it.
I am not a compulsive poster nor I care for "likes" nor I go with the river flow. Actually you may easily verify I usually go completely contrarian. I do like to be right, but I am not into rethorics. English IS my third tongue to begin with, and I prefer the "I sit at the river shore and wait for the enemy corpse to pass" approach. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:42:00 -
[558] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian. Hmmm, interesting.
By the time they realize that they are paying more in a busy rookie system to build they are old enough to be encouraged to leave the nest.
I think it is a good thing for rookies to realize that stepping out into the larger world can have distinct benefits. 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. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3052
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:43:00 -
[559] - Quote
In case people are interested, that's around 13400 new moons added to the pool of highsec anchorable moons (currently around 33000) Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1462
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:43:00 -
[560] - Quote
First I'd like to give a big thank you to the devs focusing on industry. As someone who basically has done industry for the eight years I've played, this is so exciting to see your focus and enthusiasm towards reworking the entire system. While I am scared to think of all the updates I'll have to make in EVE IPH, this is very good to see.
On the remaining of categories, good and needed change for clarity.
On the removal of extra materials, also good. It didn't bother me much since I have it built into IPH but it is a frequent question from players. It is also kind of moot now after the refining changes so glad you did this.
On the RAMs, thank god you did this. I have been asking for this change for years.
The last two changes, industry lines at stations and pos changes, may have angered some but I think they are 100% in the right direction. Industry has become a tedious but largely low-risk monotonous process. I know because I do it. While I live in nullsec, my high sec alts constantly pump out items in a risk free production chain that costs me very little to do outside of materials. With these changes, you walked right up to my beautiful sand castle, kicked it over, showed me your plans and I'm smiling because of it. Why? Because I want more interesting gameplay and right now we don't have it. Others here obviously disagree because they like their nice, organized, risk free castle building. Keep kicking I say. If they don't want to change to a more interesting industry system, more profit for those (aka me) that do.
I do have a few ideas and comments though.
On the pos placing anywhere without standings, as someone who maintains two one-man corps to keep standings for poses, I'm fine with the removal of these restrictions. However, there needs to be better balance on abandoned poses. Instead of all these new requirements and such, I suggest letting abandoned poses be attacked with suspect flags and remove shields from the hps to kill them. Maybe some further adjustments are needed but the wardec system is a slow and painful way to get an industry result. Plus, it adds more conflict...oh and helps the pos tower market. :)
On the lock down issue, I think you are saying that you aren't going to allow this? If you are banking on the reduced copy times an changes to runs for capital components, the. I think that's fine. Coupled with cost reductions through teamwork in a station, there shouldn't be any issues. Just keep capital production in mind.
On T2 BPOs, please don't reduce copy times here without a real balancing effect for invention. The status quo is ok but changing copy times would make it worse.
Finally, I'm very interested in new APIs from this overhaul that support third party development. One of the longest standing issues is having me/PE information for owned bps. Other ideas that come to mind now are production costs per station, etc. looking for more on this later.
I said to myself the other day that I wish I had more time to play the game...all while doing industry. Sure I could so something else but I like to maximize my isk per hour (kinda obvious though right?) so I do industry. The changes you hinted at seem to be completely in line with my expectations. Can't wait to see more. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2658
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:43:00 -
[561] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Halia Thorak wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:Adellle Nadair wrote:Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. This is the worst single idea I have ever seen from a dev. DO NOT DO THIS CHANGE!!!!!!!!!! We already risk a large amount of isk in just having the labs/datacores/decryptors and all of the copies needed out at a pos. Forcing us to either risk a huge amount more than that, or move the bpos to other much more populated stations that are already overpopulated (that don't have corp offices available or available for anywhere near a reasonable price) and incur a high cost that will greatly reduce production profit or negate it all together, is a horrible change. You as devs do not understand the amount of bpos required to make copies for t2 invention. And you clearly don't understand the organization and the necessity of being able to efficiently access bpos and the time commitment that industry already takes. It is incredibly shortsighted and ignorant of you to assume that it is only a slight amount of isk that we will be risking. We use and need easy access to hundreds of bpos to make the copies we need to be able to do invention. Asking us to risk multiple billions in bpos is insane. And no, I know I don't have to keep all of the bpos I am not using at the pos. However, the addition of moving around the needed bpos from the station to the pos adds an additional step and organizational nightmare to an already complicated system. Because of the nature of industry NOTHING you do with the UI and other new features will change this. This change will also create an additional hassle organizational nightmare for players who need to find or move bpos around. Industry is already complicated enough without having to deal with moving all of the bpos around. DO NOT take away our ability to organize bpos in one central station corp office so multiple characters can easily have access to them and can quickly and efficiently install jobs. DO NOT make us do more work and take more time to do industry jobs. Another severely overlooked issue that this creates: This removes the ability of safely sharing bpos by locking them down in corp hanger in a station. BPOs can't be locked down at a pos. This change will limit how and where we can play severely. It forces people who want to play together to use certain systems and certain stations, to pay for spots at those stations and it practically makes setting up a pos a waste of time and effort, because it limits its usefulness. In the culture of eve (griefers/corp thieves/all) this change removes several much needed elements of safety that allow us to enjoy playing and interacting with a larger player base. If you have decided to do this, as is suggested by other statements in this dev blog, because you haven't worked out how to deal how the slot change affects pos mods, then DO NOT make this change until you come up with a better solution. Because this is NOT the way to make this change happen. POSes are expensive, take time, effort and a good amount of isk to maintain already. Forcing us to risk a considerable amount more and in doing so increase the amount of busy work that is required for doing industry is not a good change. I personally have been playing Eve for 5 and a half years. Industry is one part of the game that I greatly enjoy doing. If this change does go through I will have to seriously consider if it is worth it to keep paying for my 4 accounts. Many of my friends who like this element of the game are already talking about leaving because of this. I sincerely hope that you will not go through with this change and that the other forthcoming industry changes are much more intelligently and thoughtfully crafted than this. If not, you will be losing a large group of your paying customers. This. I'm not planning to quit but if this change goes through you can bet your ass you will be shutting down most of the REAL industry corporations with REAL members as well as mass producers as the risk and effort will no longer be worth it. I have to agree if the profits dive as much as they will with this change, I can see a lot of the long time producers shutting shops as their isk/hour vs invested time will just plummet to a figure not worth their time. Or market prices will adjust (as they always do) to keep the activity just as profitable as it is now....
Or...as the next 4 dev blogs will reveal, this is just the first step in eviscerating high sec industry and null sec industry will be given even MORE advantages that make it impossible to run either a casual high sec indy corp or a large scale dedicated industrial corp. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1338
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:44:00 -
[562] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian.
you can always simply make sure the rookie systems are uneffected by the congestion charges. or make sure the charge formula takes the length of the job into account. GRRR Goons |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
353
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:44:00 -
[563] - Quote
Come on. Post the next blog already. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:45:00 -
[564] - Quote
Quote:On T2 BPOs, please don't reduce copy times here without a real balancing effect for invention. The status quo is ok but changing copy times would make it worse.
Inventors would benefit far more than T2 BPO owners from reduced copy times. 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. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
994
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:45:00 -
[565] - Quote
Please lower resists on offline POS. There should be a more significant risk to letting them run out of fuel. At the moment I just put it offline when I have finishes my jobs because it is perfectly safe. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:46:00 -
[566] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:In case people are interested, that's around 13400 new moons added to the pool of highsec anchorable moons (currently around 33000)
Hello, Steve, who I will vote for CSM.
I would not really make too many calculations over spare moons or similar, EvE has this excellent feature called (almost) "free market" that settles down these things. And ISK shall still be ridicolously easy to make to pay for added costs. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3054
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:46:00 -
[567] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian. you can always simply make sure the rookie systems are uneffected by the congestion charges. or make sure the charge formula takes the length of the job into account.
Problem with the removal of the congestion charge in rookie systems is: Everyone manufactures in a rookie system. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:47:00 -
[568] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian. you can always simply make sure the rookie systems are uneffected by the congestion charges. or make sure the charge formula takes the length of the job into account. Well, making rookie systems unaffected would simply serve to make them the new industry hubs. 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. |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy The Unthinkables
139
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:47:00 -
[569] - Quote
No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3054
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:47:00 -
[570] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:In case people are interested, that's around 13400 new moons added to the pool of highsec anchorable moons (currently around 33000) Hello, Steve, who I will vote for CSM. I would not really make too many calculations over spare moons or similar, EvE has this excellent feature called (almost) "free market" that settles down these things. And ISK shall still be ridicolously easy to make to pay for added costs.
Heh. Just thinking it'll take a wee while to fill up. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20799
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:47:00 -
[571] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Or...as the next 4 dev blogs will reveal, this is just the first step in eviscerating high sec industry and null sec industry will be given even MORE advantages that make it impossible to run either a casual high sec indy corp or a large scale dedicated industrial corp. Why would they do that, though? And if that's the goal, why would they start with a significant buff to highsec industry? 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. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
366
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:48:00 -
[572] - Quote
El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:50:00 -
[573] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Or...as the next 4 dev blogs will reveal, this is just the first step in eviscerating high sec industry and null sec industry will be given even MORE advantages that make it impossible to run either a casual high sec indy corp or a large scale dedicated industrial corp. Why would they do that, though? And if that's the goal, why would they start with a significant buff to highsec industry? Well that's easy, because they need to do that first before they never. 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. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
312
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:50:00 -
[574] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian.
Of all the things mentioned in this blog this is all you have to say? I thought you were running on the industry platform? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20799
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:50:00 -
[575] - Quote
Querns wrote:El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution. Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? 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. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3054
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:50:00 -
[576] - Quote
Querns wrote:El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution.
How about:
POS without charters are free to shoot?
And they continue to tick down, even if the tower is offline. Possibly at an elevated rate. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:51:00 -
[577] - Quote
Querns wrote:El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution. Yeah, I kind of like that.
If you let the lights go out, it is considered abandoned unless or until you turn them back on.
Removing shields (which require power) would not go amiss either. 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. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3054
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:51:00 -
[578] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian. Of all the things mentioned in this blog this is all you have to say? I thought you were running on the industry platform?
You missed my first post.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474425#post4474425
I've just spent the last 5 hours stuck doing a deployment at work. I'm just settling down to read it now. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
366
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:53:00 -
[579] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution. Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? It gives the pos haver warning and lets them online the tower. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:53:00 -
[580] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Or...as the next 4 dev blogs will reveal, this is just the first step in eviscerating high sec industry and null sec industry will be given even MORE advantages that make it impossible to run either a casual high sec indy corp or a large scale dedicated industrial corp.
I am not known to be a strenuous (sov) null sec supremacy "because it's Good" supporter. But give CCP some slack please.
The potential nerf to Supercaps Online(tm) is sublime and hi sec was a TERRIBLE mechanic to begin with, seeing it slowly phased out imo is a good idea, as long as there are new mechanics to allow the individuals to still afford playing this game.
Think about this: in the vituperated WoW, you are statistically LESS safe against ganking than in EvE's hi sec.
EvE is marketed as cold, harsh universe, if CCP makes it really so, they are just delivering what they have written on the tin. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5583
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:53:00 -
[581] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution. Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? i think the wardec solution works great vs an active corp.. however vs abandoned POS's that are out of fuel I do not thing a simpler (and less expensive) option would not go amiss. 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. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
312
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:53:00 -
[582] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:If it's possible, I'd like to see the following added:
All stations with rookie industry agents are limited to 'civilian' blueprints.
That way, the cost for rookies shouldn't be too bad, when they're going through their tutorials, rather than the stations being constantly jam packed.
Then just make sure the free venture bpc is tagged civilian. Of all the things mentioned in this blog this is all you have to say? I thought you were running on the industry platform? You missed my first post. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474425#post4474425I've just spent the last 5 hours stuck doing a deployment at work. I'm just settling down to read it now.
My apologies, I assumed you were back from work and replying already |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:54:00 -
[583] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:In case people are interested, that's around 13400 new moons added to the pool of highsec anchorable moons (currently around 33000) Hello, Steve, who I will vote for CSM. I would not really make too many calculations over spare moons or similar, EvE has this excellent feature called (almost) "free market" that settles down these things. And ISK shall still be ridicolously easy to make to pay for added costs. Heh. Just thinking it'll take a wee while to fill up.
Now translate it like a good trader would do: any transition times equal to trends, and trends mean dynamism, creativiy and PROFIT! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
154
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:56:00 -
[584] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Adellle Nadair wrote:Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. This is the worst single idea I have ever seen from a dev. DO NOT DO THIS CHANGE!!!!!!!!!! We already risk a large amount of isk in just having the labs/datacores/decryptors and all of the copies needed out at a pos. Forcing us to either risk a huge amount more than that, or move the bpos to other much more populated stations that are already overpopulated (that don't have corp offices available or available for anywhere near a reasonable price) and incur a high cost that will greatly reduce production profit or negate it all together, is a horrible change. You as devs do not understand the amount of bpos required to make copies for t2 invention. And you clearly don't understand the organization and the necessity of being able to efficiently access bpos and the time commitment that industry already takes. It is incredibly shortsighted and ignorant of you to assume that it is only a slight amount of isk that we will be risking. We use and need easy access to hundreds of bpos to make the copies we need to be able to do invention. Asking us to risk multiple billions in bpos is insane. And no, I know I don't have to keep all of the bpos I am not using at the pos. However, the addition of moving around the needed bpos from the station to the pos adds an additional step and organizational nightmare to an already complicated system. Because of the nature of industry NOTHING you do with the UI and other new features will change this. This change will also create an additional hassle organizational nightmare for players who need to find or move bpos around. Industry is already complicated enough without having to deal with moving all of the bpos around. DO NOT take away our ability to organize bpos in one central station corp office so multiple characters can easily have access to them and can quickly and efficiently install jobs. DO NOT make us do more work and take more time to do industry jobs. Another severely overlooked issue that this creates: This removes the ability of safely sharing bpos by locking them down in corp hanger in a station. BPOs can't be locked down at a pos. This change will limit how and where we can play severely. It forces people who want to play together to use certain systems and certain stations, to pay for spots at those stations and it practically makes setting up a pos a waste of time and effort, because it limits its usefulness. In the culture of eve (griefers/corp thieves/all) this change removes several much needed elements of safety that allow us to enjoy playing and interacting with a larger player base. If you have decided to do this, as is suggested by other statements in this dev blog, because you haven't worked out how to deal how the slot change affects pos mods, then DO NOT make this change until you come up with a better solution. Because this is NOT the way to make this change happen. POSes are expensive, take time, effort and a good amount of isk to maintain already. Forcing us to risk a considerable amount more and in doing so increase the amount of busy work that is required for doing industry is not a good change. I personally have been playing Eve for 5 and a half years. Industry is one part of the game that I greatly enjoy doing. If this change does go through I will have to seriously consider if it is worth it to keep paying for my 4 accounts. Many of my friends who like this element of the game are already talking about leaving because of this. I sincerely hope that you will not go through with this change and that the other forthcoming industry changes are much more intelligently and thoughtfully crafted than this. If not, you will be losing a large group of your paying customers. This. I'm not planning to quit but if this change goes through you can bet your ass you will be shutting down most of the REAL industry corporations with REAL members as well as mass producers as the risk and effort will no longer be worth it.
Here we go,, if people are already claiming to unsub before reading the rest of CCP's dev blogs on this without any in depth analysis then they were never a "Real" industrist to begin with. God forbid if everything is not handed to you on a silver plater.
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
Canenald
Rubella Solaris Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:56:00 -
[585] - Quote
Lors Dornick wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Canenald wrote:Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down. Yeah, just like the creation of a GUI dumbed down computer use. Hell, now EVERONE will be able to do it... sheesh. We talk a lot about good and bad complexity within the team. A fair portion of the industry changes are pretty clear examples of removing bad complexity, while still keeping the interesting problems for players to solve. Some of the changes are also centered around cleaning up years of legacy code, freeing us up to better iterate on the feature and do more sexy looking UI Success in industry should be about knowing what to build, how, where, when, sourced from where and sold at the right place and at the right time. Edit: and for the right price. It should never be about to be able to stand or navigate a stupid UI.
I wasn't referring to the new UI, which I also like. I was referring to the changes to R.A.M. and similar components, the extra materials and the station slots. As with many features of EVE, variety, complexity and realism is what sets eve apart from generic MMOs. Take that away and manufacturing in EVE will become more like crafting in every other game.
It makes more sense for tools like R.A.M. to be gradually damaged than consumed by the process of manufacturing. If you wanted to do away with the randomness, just give them a limited number of uses rather than making them consumable materials like everything else.
Extra materials also add a nice non-generic flavour to the manufacturing process.
Removal of extra materials and semi-consumable components is justified by the fact that many less experienced players are calculating their manufacturing costs wrongly, but then you replace manufacturing slots with gradually increasing manufacturing fee. Don't you think many newbies will engage in unprofitable manufacture because they will not notice that they are being charged more than their eventual profit by manufacturing in a busy system? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:56:00 -
[586] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Come on. Post the next blog already.
CCP are employing a simple and oiled strategy well known in the marketing world: when you approach a (yearly) period of low sales (this period being one) start throwing appetizers to catch interest and glue potential buyers to you.
Posting stuff in phases is exactly an expectation raiser => fidelization. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5190
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:57:00 -
[587] - Quote
Altrue wrote:6 - POSes in high-sec without standing requirements? Cool! But we still need a way to easily remove offline POSes!
Shoot them. How much easier do you need it?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20800
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:58:00 -
[588] - Quote
Querns wrote:It gives the pos haver warning and lets them online the tower. So? Then it is obviously an actively occupied moon.
Ranger1 wrote:i think the wardec solution works great vs an active corp.. however vs abandoned POS's that are out of fuel I do not thing a simpler, shorter, (and less expensive) option would not go amiss. If it's abandoned POSes that need to go, I'd prefer something along the lines of what's discussed in this thread. 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
355
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:59:00 -
[589] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution. Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? It's been sufficient for me, many, many times in the past.
I have never, ever, had any issue getting a moon (or multiple moons) in the system I want.
I can understand introducing a new and interesting mechanic to enrich the game, but in the absence of that I don't see a need to make it any easier than it already is to get a moon.
Add to this the vast amount of quality real estate that will be added by opening up the higher sec systems and I don't really see it as an issue worthy of additional developer time. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5584
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:00:00 -
[590] - Quote
Canenald wrote:Lors Dornick wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Canenald wrote:Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down. Yeah, just like the creation of a GUI dumbed down computer use. Hell, now EVERONE will be able to do it... sheesh. We talk a lot about good and bad complexity within the team. A fair portion of the industry changes are pretty clear examples of removing bad complexity, while still keeping the interesting problems for players to solve. Some of the changes are also centered around cleaning up years of legacy code, freeing us up to better iterate on the feature and do more sexy looking UI Success in industry should be about knowing what to build, how, where, when, sourced from where and sold at the right place and at the right time. Edit: and for the right price. It should never be about to be able to stand or navigate a stupid UI. I wasn't referring to the new UI, which I also like. I was referring to the changes to R.A.M. and similar components, the extra materials and the station slots. As with many features of EVE, variety, complexity and realism is what sets eve apart from generic MMOs. Take that away and manufacturing in EVE will become more like crafting in every other game. It makes more sense for tools like R.A.M. to be gradually damaged than consumed by the process of manufacturing. If you wanted to do away with the randomness, just give them a limited number of uses rather than making them consumable materials like everything else. Extra materials also add a nice non-generic flavour to the manufacturing process. Removal of extra materials and semi-consumable components is justified by the fact that many less experienced players are calculating their manufacturing costs wrongly, but then you replace manufacturing slots with gradually increasing manufacturing fee. Don't you think many newbies will engage in unprofitable manufacture because they will not notice that they are being charged more than their eventual profit by manufacturing in a busy system? Fair enough, but the total cost to manufacture will be clearly visible before you begin the job. So... yes, some will. But none of those paying at least slight attention to what they are doing will. 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. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5584
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:02:00 -
[591] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:It gives the pos haver warning and lets them online the tower. So? Then it is obviously an actively occupied moon. Ranger1 wrote:i think the wardec solution works great vs an active corp.. however vs abandoned POS's that are out of fuel I do not thing a simpler, shorter, (and less expensive) option would not go amiss. If it's abandoned POSes that need to go, I'd prefer something along the lines of what's discussed in this thread. Hehe, I had missed that one. Yes, that looks far more entertaining. 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. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:03:00 -
[592] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:gifter Penken wrote:So, while it may at first appear that increasing the supply of T2 items that can be produce via T2 BPO would increase profitability of those T2 BPOs... it is not necessarily the case. Some T2 items will still have demand that exceeds supply that can be met by T2 BPOs and those will become more profitable. Other are likely to shift from invention being the price point, to BPO being the price point, and profit on those could decline.
You need to consider the extremely limited output supplied by T2 BPO's. For example, a well researched T2 cruiser BPO can build about 1 ship a day.
I did consider both cases.
1) For some items, T2 BPO supply will now exceed demand, profitability may go down as invention is no longer the price setter. 2) For some items, T2 BPO produced items will still be insufficient to meet demand, profitability will go up for the BPO holders.
If I had to guess, I would bet the increased profits from the second case would be much larger than potential reduced profits from the first case.
The real point was an attempt to counter Tippa's comment that invention supplied quantity and T2 BPO supplied quantity are unrelated. That is not true. Total demand will be filled by the sum of T2 BPO produced and invention produced. The more produced by BPO, the less needed to be invented.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:03:00 -
[593] - Quote
Question to the devs: Will S&I missions be addressed during the upcoming release?
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3056
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:06:00 -
[594] - Quote
For a slightly more in depth reaction (bearing in mind I still need to read the other dev blogs, so all reactions are muted by 'other changes are coming)
Market Groups: Good change.
RAM: Great change. Removes a bit of pointless complexity.
Extra Materials: Going to have to see how this is implemented. For example, when a ship is a component. I know how it's handled behind the scenes (with recyclable materials reducing base materials.) Going to have to rewrite my calculator for this In addition, it means that when recycling some T2 things, you'll be able to get back some components you couldn't get before. Unless it's handled differently. tl;dr: Not a bad change. Going to have to see the exact implementation
Cost Scaling: I really need to see the blog on this, before commenting. It sounds like it could be a good change, but I'd prefer to see no upper cap on the cost.
As for T2BPO copying, this could be a real game changer, and one I'm not hugely keen on. depends on how much the cost is reduced. Maybe add some datacores to the cost for copying? Right now, their limitation comes from invention being able to massively outproduce them. Really fast copies could cripple that, which hands a major advantage to the T2 BPO owners.
The UI: oooooo, shiny.
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
492
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:08:00 -
[595] - Quote
Just a quickie:
Post 'Tiericide' and Extra materials, I don't think you have changed the Insurance payouts to reflect the new relative build costs. For Example: - A Platinum Insured Dominix still only seems to payout about 60m whereas it retails for circa 200m. - A Platinum Insured Hyperion still returns perhaps 150m and retails for roughly the same now as a Dominix.
This disparity appears to occur across all the recently balanced ship classes and really skews ship choices for PVP - surely it would make sense to rectify this while you confirm the new 'baseline' costs of ships by eliminating extra materials? Either that or I'm badly misunderstanding how insurance works now. Thanks.
Oh and that bottom screenshot looks like a horribly random placement of information. At least when it is all linear you can quickly scan across to find what you want - explosively scattering the information all over the screen for the sake of 'pretty' seems silly to me - but I guess I'll reserve my functionality comments for the UI blog.
Thanks.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20800
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:08:00 -
[596] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:The real point was an attempt to counter Tippa's comment that invention supplied quantity and T2 BPO supplied quantity are unrelated. That is not true. Total demand will be filled by the sum of T2 BPO produced and invention produced. The more produced by BPO, the less needed to be invented. That's not my comment, though. My comment was about production, which are unrelated. You're working on the assumption that supply and demand are matched 1:1; that an increase in one production method automatically means reduction in the other; and that GÇ£needGÇ¥ is measurable by either party.
The likely scenario is that inventors will keep inventing at the same speed, BPO holders will build at slightly higher speed, and that the difference is lost in the noise of regular market fluctuation. The fact that BPO holders can now produce slightly more has exactly zero impact on how much inventors choose to produce. 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. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5349
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:10:00 -
[597] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: The UI: oooooo, shiny.
Please take to heart to push CCP to schedule an overhaul of the markets charts, including by implementing candle stick bars.
After all they did "took an hint" from my RL derived market charts in the last Fanfest so they have the data and "tech" to do it. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1096
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:11:00 -
[598] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote:Just a quickie:
Post 'Tiericide' and Extra materials, I don't think you have changed the Insurance payouts to reflect the new relative build costs. For Example: - A Platinum Insured Dominix still only seems to payout about 60m whereas it retails for circa 200m. - A Platinum Insured Hyperion still returns perhaps 150m and retails for roughly the same now as a Dominix.
This disparity appears to occur across all the recently balanced ship classes and really skews ship choices for PVP - surely it would make sense to rectify this while you confirm the new 'baseline' costs of ships by eliminating extra materials? Either that or I'm badly misunderstanding how insurance works now. Thanks.
Oh and that bottom screenshot looks like a horribly random placement of information. At least when it is all linear you can quickly scan across to find what you want - explosively scattering the information all over the screen for the sake of 'pretty' seems silly to me - but I guess I'll reserve my functionality comments for the UI blog.
Thanks. I thought insurance actually did take mineral costs into account. Maybe the extra minerals aren't factored in? If that's the case this change may rectify that. Otherwise I'm not sure.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
994
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:11:00 -
[599] - Quote
I am worried about reduced copy time devaluing invention. Please nerf T2 BPOs.
No, I don't have any ;) But they still need to be nerfed otherwise newer industry players are at an enormous disadvantage. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:12:00 -
[600] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:For a slightly more in depth reaction (bearing in mind I still need to read the other dev blogs, so all reactions are muted by 'other changes are coming)
CLIP
Nice summary, but you missed what I consider to be the biggest change of all. No more building or researching from BPO that is safely locked down in corp hanger in station.
The hassle that is going to create... alt corp running a high sec large tower to allow safe research and copy of 10s of billions of ISk worth of BPOs.. MAJOR dumb complexity.
They are never going to get the intended change of 10s or 100s of billions of ISk worth of BPOs being put into POS structures wjere they can be destroyed or captured as loot drop. Players are just not that stupid!
|
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1463
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:13:00 -
[601] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution. Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? It takes too long.
The pos is abandoned or the corp doesn't care enough about it to fuel it and online it. It is literally taking up space for no other reason than to "save a spot".
If you can't be bothered to fuel your pos and use it...and take it down when you aren't, then you don't need it up in the first place. Giving someone 24 hours to power it up to "keep the spot" doesn't further the goal of providing opportunities for using the POS bonuses in this blog nor does it support the risk vs. reward for industry.
Change the rules: Abandoned POSs can be attacked with suspect flag. If you forget your pos or don't want to use it, you accept the risk for not paying attention for losing it. Simple, efficient, and 100% EVE. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
The Anti-Hero
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:13:00 -
[602] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Garth of Izar wrote:how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now.
The whole idea seems to be to force people to defend their assets, yet there is no way now to defend them from a thief in their own corp? How is a person supposed to join a corp of sufficient size to defend their POS, while in the same motion, removing the ability to secure the prints from thieves in the same corp? I thought we were shifting away from the horribly broken (and apparently unfix-able) POS mechanics, not forcing people to risk billions of isk in assets at them.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3057
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:16:00 -
[603] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:For a slightly more in depth reaction (bearing in mind I still need to read the other dev blogs, so all reactions are muted by 'other changes are coming)
CLIP
Nice summary, but you missed what I consider to be the biggest change of all. No more building or researching from BPO that is safely locked down in corp hanger in station. The hassle that is going to create... alt corp running a high sec large tower to allow safe research and copy of 10s of billions of ISk worth of BPOs.. MAJOR dumb complexity. They are never going to get the intended change of 10s or 100s of billions of ISk worth of BPOs being put into POS structures where they can be stolen, destroyed or captured as loot drop. Players are just not that stupid!
Bah! I did miss commenting on that here, yes (mentioned it on twitter ). I'll update.
I did notice it. and it is a concern. Though possibly mitigated by the reduced copy times.
Ideally you'll have small personal hangars added to all arrays. If that's possible. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:17:00 -
[604] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I am worried about reduced copy time devaluing invention. Please nerf T2 BPOs. No, I don't have any ;)
But they still need to be nerfed otherwise newer industry players are at an enormous disadvantage.
IMHO, the worst part of T2 BPOs are the hate and discontent they create in new(er) players. No matter how long we play, we will never get a change to become an instant mega billionaire, simply by winning a T2 BPO lottery. We will always be at a SERIOUS disadvantage to other players, simply because we are newer.
Real mega-advantage or not, it is the perception that creates the hate.
I know CCP has a policy of not removing things, but they could buff invention so that inventors are on an equal footing with T2 BPO holders. There, didn't "remove" T2 BPO, just made them irrelevant.
|
Kyshonuba
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:19:00 -
[605] - Quote
The Anti-Hero wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Garth of Izar wrote:how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now. The whole idea seems to be to force people to defend their assets, yet there is no way now to defend them from a thief in their own corp? How is a person supposed to join a corp of sufficient size to defend their POS, while in the same motion, removing the ability to secure the prints from thieves in the same corp? I thought we were shifting away from the horribly broken (and apparently unfix-able) POS mechanics, not forcing people to risk billions of isk in assets at them.
POS rework is stil underway. I feel that those concern's should rather be acknowwledged by "new POS design" then under "please give us remote research back" |
Inspiration
134
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:23:00 -
[606] - Quote
Thead Enco wrote:What if CCP made it possible to launch bombs in empire......... Pointless to speculate about that. I am serious! |
Zetaomega333
HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi
60
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:24:00 -
[607] - Quote
Kyshonuba wrote:The Anti-Hero wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Garth of Izar wrote:how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now. The whole idea seems to be to force people to defend their assets, yet there is no way now to defend them from a thief in their own corp? How is a person supposed to join a corp of sufficient size to defend their POS, while in the same motion, removing the ability to secure the prints from thieves in the same corp? I thought we were shifting away from the horribly broken (and apparently unfix-able) POS mechanics, not forcing people to risk billions of isk in assets at them. POS rework is stil underway. I feel that those concern's should rather be acknowwledged by "new POS design" then under "please give us remote research back"
Yeh sorry i dont care for a redesign thats still possibly 2 years out. ALl i know is i will not be researching bpos from a pos again, All the mobile labs i have are useless. CCP's statement about how they want to give people the chance to react to a pos being reffed is beyond ******** as no alliance had the snap numbers in absolutely every tz to counter a 20 man dread fleet hitting a pos and stop them instantly. This is just a way for ccp to put some of the big time bpos out of commission to bring the value of them up. I honestly cant thing of any other reason for ccp to do this as they arnt stupid enough to actually think the reasons they gave. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20800
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:24:00 -
[608] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? It takes too long. 25 hours is GÇ£too longGÇ¥? Yeah, no. You're going to have to come up with something far better than that. What you're saying here is that the solution is ample, but you're simply too impatient. That's your problem, and not sufficient reason to change anything.
Quote:The pos is abandoned or the corp doesn't care enough about it to fuel it and online it. It is literally taking up space for no other reason than to "save a spot". Yes? And? That's as good a reason as any. It's a resource, and they've claimed it. You can try to take it from them by starting a war, same as with any other large asset they have.
If you're in a rush, have you tried making an offer to the corp for the spot?
Quote:Change the rules: Abandoned POSs can be attacked with suspect flag. How do you determine what counts as GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥? 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
355
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:26:00 -
[609] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? It takes too long. Most of the time is spent waiting for the wardec to start.
It is perfectly reasonable to give someone notice that you are going to attack their hi-sec assets. It is perfectly reasonable for them to respond. I doubt very much that any future mechanic would ever circumvent the wardec without replacing it with a similar notice period. So whatever timespan you are hoping for isn't very realistic. |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
689
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:31:00 -
[610] - Quote
Either search is broken (would not be a shocker) or there hasn't been a
WEYLAND-YUTANI
reference in 31 pages of comments on this blog, which is horrifying.
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/291/9/e/weyland_yutanie_wallpaper_by_loki76-d310oru.png @pmchem on twitter || GARPA || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
|
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:33:00 -
[611] - Quote
Tippia wrote:gifter Penken wrote:The real point was an attempt to counter Tippa's comment that invention supplied quantity and T2 BPO supplied quantity are unrelated. That is not true. Total demand will be filled by the sum of T2 BPO produced and invention produced. The more produced by BPO, the less needed to be invented. That's not my comment, though. My comment was about production, which are unrelated. You're working on the assumption that supply and demand are matched 1:1; that an increase in one production method automatically means reduction in the other; and that GÇ£needGÇ¥ is measurable by either party. The likely scenario is that inventors will keep inventing at the same speed, BPO holders will build at slightly higher speed, and that the difference is lost in the noise of regular market fluctuation. The fact that BPO holders can now produce slightly more has exactly zero impact on how much inventors choose to produce.
Lost in the noise? What?
You must be assuming that across the board, production from T2 BPOs is only a very tiny fraction of total supply (like maybe under 15%. Here, a 20% increase in T2 BPO production would be only 3% increased total production... nosie.
For some items, T2 supply exceeds demand, and those are unprofitable to invent. There have to be some items where the T2 BPO supply is not a very tiny fraction of demand. I'm not saying 90% is BPO and 10% is invention.
If 50% of an item is currently coming from T2 BPO, and production is increased by 20% from reduced copy time, we're looking at 10% excessive supply. That is not "noise". That is falling prices until people stop inventing.
Profit on invented items is so slim that you can't count on falling prices increasing demand. Instead, falling prices will make it unprofitable to invent, and invention will decline until supply and demand are back in balance.
If, indeed, most items that are currenlty profitable to invent are only 10% supplied by BPO and 90% from invention, then perhaps changes to BPO production are just "nosie" as you say. I just find it hard to beleive that is true for all T2 items that are currenlty profitable to invent.
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2599
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:37:00 -
[612] - Quote
These changes, I mostly like them.
Question. Some items have base prices that do not accurately reflect their real market value (IIRC, most tech 2 ship hulls are an example).
If an Oneiros's market price is 150 million, I assume your design intention is that building the hull in Jita 4-4 CNAP will cost 21m ISK. However, isn't the base price of the hull just under 14m ISK (source: http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=11989 ), leading to an assembly cost of under 2m ISK at Jita 4-4 CNAP? I do not think this is desirable.
I forsee this causing a migration of tech 2 production from stations 2-4j from hubs into the actual hubs themselves. Tech 1 assembly will take place in quiet areas of contiguous highsec, and tech 2 in hubs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
147
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:41:00 -
[613] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:Now it appears you are just being contrary. No, I'm just not accepting your notion that the production capability of BPO holders somehow affects the production capability of inventors, seeing as how they are not in any way related. I'm also not buying the notion that the inventors' prices will be affected in any major way since the production increase from the BPOs amounts to market noise compared to how much inventors produce. Kadl wrote:The issue is obviously not how much can be produced, but rather how much will be produced, and sold. Maybe so, but that's not what you said. And again, BPOs aren't particularly significant to the supply of anything where invention is profitable. It'll be lost in the noise of inventors changing their item production from one cycle to the next.
It seems that you have missed all of my points and statements and are just continuing to argue to waste some time. I don't claim the things you state here. I never claimed that T2 BPO production capabilities would effect inventor production capabilities, only their profits, prices, and market volume. I never predicted a major movement in prices and can happily agree to entertain different predictions while we have so little data. I am not sure why you are even replying to me when you are not addressing my real arguments. I guess we both just have a bit of extra time on our hands.
My original post to you was merely noting that supply and demand work and that I don't want to see any tipping of the scales towards T2 BPO holders.
Ranger 1 wrote:Indeed, just keep in mind that any benefit in time that a T2 BPO owner is likely to see will be far more beneficial to the Invention specialist, considering all the different steps that are required in Invention and the scale on which it is usually done.
I hope that you are correct. Perhaps you are referring to the addition of copying as an expected activity to maximize T2 BPO production. That should increase the effort on their part. Both parties should have similar reductions in copying time. That actually leads me to another thought that the current total production capacity in EVE will be able to produce more T2 items. It would seem a reduction in T2 prices (nothing said about profits) is on order. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3059
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:41:00 -
[614] - Quote
http://k162space.com/2012/07/17/percentage-of-items-from-invention-vs-tech-2-bpo/ is of interest for people trying to work out percentages made from T2 BPOs.
It's about 2 years out of date now, but it is based on information from CCP themselves. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
355
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:44:00 -
[615] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:IMHO, the worst part of T2 BPOs are the hate and discontent they create in new(er) players. No matter how long we play, we will never get a change to become an instant mega billionaire, simply by winning a T2 BPO lottery. We will always be at a SERIOUS disadvantage to other players, simply because we are newer. But that is just ignorance. Changing the reality will not change the ignorance of that reality.
T2 BPOs are very close to irrelevant for both the new player and the average inventor. It would not be possible to make them significantly less relevant without taking fairly extreme action. No great benefit would be gained from that extreme action. The people who like to complain about things they don't understand will still be complaining about things they don't understand. Along with that you would have diminished or destroyed one of the few aspirational objectives available to the high end industrialist. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:44:00 -
[616] - Quote
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the intent of taking away remote research/manufacture on BPOs.
So, CCP, what is the intended result of this change?
Is it your intention that billions of ISK worth of BPOs will now be in the POS where they can be stolen, destroyed, captured?
If that is your intent, then FAIL! You seem to assume that players will be stupid. They won't be. The expensive BPOs are NOT going into a low/null POS.
Or, was it your intention that we'll spend a few days training up research alts, create a corp of one plater with half a dozen research alts, then run a high sec, super hardened POS cranking out copies of BPOs, then transport those BPOs to our primary corp manufacturing POS.
If your intent was creating all these extra levels of pain in the manufacturing process... then Epic Win! |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5190
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:44:00 -
[617] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:It gives the pos haver warning and lets them online the tower. So? Then it is obviously an actively occupied moon. Ranger1 wrote:i think the wardec solution works great vs an active corp.. however vs abandoned POS's that are out of fuel I do not thing a simpler, shorter, (and less expensive) option would not go amiss. If it's abandoned POSes that need to go, I'd prefer something along the lines of what's discussed in this thread.
Or just wardec it, shoot it down, then retract the wardec. 48 hours from go to whoa. If that's too much effort, you didn't deserve that POS anchoring position anyway.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2599
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:47:00 -
[618] - Quote
Other concerns:
- Titan BPCs and supercarrier BPCs being faster to produce. This is going to change nullsec significantly, and not for the better. - T2 BPO copying being faster. Again, this will increase output of T2 BPOs. - 'High value' T1 BPOs (battlecruiser and up) being faster to copy will result in less people electing to purchase those BPOs from vendors, as a smaller number of researched BPOs is needed to fill demand. Consequence - a lessening of the ISK sink these BPOs produce.
Suggested change:
- For BPOs exceeding 100m ISK in vendor value, and also for all tech 2 BPOs, set copy time at 150% of manufacture time. (IIRC it is currently 300%, so it is still a significant buff) - For BPOs not fitting these categories, copy time can be less than manufacture time, perhaps 75% of it. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20804
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:48:00 -
[619] - Quote
Kadl wrote:I never claimed that T2 BPO production capabilities would effect inventor production capabilities, only their profits, prices, and market volume. You said that higher BPO output somehow yields lower invention output, and you said this in response to my saying that the higher output of BPOs won't hurt investors. I'm saying it does not because they two are not connected.
Quote:My original post to you was merely noting that supply and demand work and that I don't want to see any tipping of the scales towards T2 BPO holders. And my original post already noted that inventors won't be particularly affected by that minute alteration on the supply side.
Mara Rinn wrote:Or just wardec it, shoot it down, then retract the wardec. 48 hours from go to whoa. If that's too much effort, you didn't deserve that POS anchoring position anyway. ^^ Pretty much. The alternative mechanic discussed in the other thread would rather trade longer time for less risk exposure (on both sides), with the intent that it only ever have any effect on truly abandoned POSes. 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. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:51:00 -
[620] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:http://k162space.com/2012/07/17/percentage-of-items-from-invention-vs-tech-2-bpo/ is of interest for people trying to work out percentages made from T2 BPOs.
It's about 2 years out of date now, but it is based on information from CCP themselves.
That does indicate, as I expected, there is a wide spectrum of cases. Everything from BPO supplying 5% to BPO supplying 95%.
For some items, an increase in BPO production via copy would be noise. For other items, even a modest increase would be a game changer where the price point shifts from invented cost to T2 BPO production cost.
For some items, where BPO production remains below demand, profits from BPO are likely to go up. For some items, where BPO production suddenly exceeds demand, profits from BPO may go down. |
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
355
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:51:00 -
[621] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Perhaps I am misunderstanding the intent of taking away remote research/manufacture on BPOs.
So, CCP, what is the intended result of this change?
Is it your intention that billions of ISK worth of BPOs will now be in the POS where they can be stolen, destroyed, captured?
If that is your intent, then FAIL! You seem to assume that players will be stupid. They won't be. The expensive BPOs are NOT going into a low/null POS.
Or, was it your intention that we'll spend a few days training up research alts, create a corp of one plater with half a dozen research alts, then run a high sec, super hardened POS cranking out copies of BPOs, then transport those BPOs to our primary corp manufacturing POS.
If your intent was creating all these extra levels of pain in the manufacturing process... then Epic Win! Given that EVE is a sandbox game, I would have thought that their intention would be to let us figure out for ourselves what the best solution is for our own individual needs. Given that the tools provided allow for a fairly diverse selection of solutions to the same problem, it does kind of look that way. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
147
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:52:00 -
[622] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Zappity wrote:I am worried about reduced copy time devaluing invention. Please nerf T2 BPOs. No, I don't have any ;)
But they still need to be nerfed otherwise newer industry players are at an enormous disadvantage. IMHO, the worst part of T2 BPOs are the hate and discontent they create in new(er) players. No matter how long we play, we will never get a change to become an instant mega billionaire, simply by winning a T2 BPO lottery. We will always be at a SERIOUS disadvantage to other players, simply because we are newer. Real mega-advantage or not, it is the perception that creates the hate. I know CCP has a policy of not removing things, but they could buff invention so that inventors are on an equal footing with T2 BPO holders. There, didn't "remove" T2 BPO, just made them irrelevant.
I think T2 BPOs just feel wrong to many newer players, and the perceptions and feelings cause the hate. The arguments showing a lack of advantage seem pretty clear to me. At this point the T2 BPOs have been purchased and are providing minor returns. Still they cause arguments and bad feelings. It seems like reducing their power slowly honors both the investment and the frustrated feelings. |
Lilliana Stelles
1224
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:55:00 -
[623] - Quote
I'm wanting to know how invention and T2 BPOs will be affected during this, if at all. Not a forum alt.-á |
The Anti-Hero
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:55:00 -
[624] - Quote
Kyshonuba wrote:The Anti-Hero wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Garth of Izar wrote:how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now. The whole idea seems to be to force people to defend their assets, yet there is no way now to defend them from a thief in their own corp? How is a person supposed to join a corp of sufficient size to defend their POS, while in the same motion, removing the ability to secure the prints from thieves in the same corp? I thought we were shifting away from the horribly broken (and apparently unfix-able) POS mechanics, not forcing people to risk billions of isk in assets at them. POS rework is stil underway. I feel that those concern's should rather be acknowwledged by "new POS design" then under "please give us remote research back"
Then fix the broken mechanic before forcing people into using it. The promise of a fix coming soon no longer holds weight with people in the Eve community.
People researching prints in a POS from a station is not exactly game breaking. This change adds unneeded risk and complexity to one thing in Eve industry that wasn't broken. If CCP wants to add a risk factor, perhaps allowing people to research prints in a POS from a station should remain, but if the POS dies while that print is plugged into it, there is a chance that it was unrecoverable or something. Currently CCP's plan is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
|
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:56:00 -
[625] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kadl wrote:I never claimed that T2 BPO production capabilities would effect inventor production capabilities, only their profits, prices, and market volume. You said that higher BPO output somehow yields lower invention output, and you said this in response to my saying that the higher output of BPOs won't hurt investors. I'm saying it does not because they two are not connected.
But they ARE connected. Demand will not change. BPO supply + invented supply mus equal demand for prices to be stable.
If more are being produced from BPO, then fewer can be produced from invention, without putting negative pressure on price.
You continue to assert that any increase in T2 BPO production would just be "noise" in total production. Evidence indiacte there are some T2 items where BPO production accounts for 90+% of total production.. In those cases, even a modest increase in T2 BPO production woudl be MUCH MORE than just noise.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
356
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:56:00 -
[626] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:http://k162space.com/2012/07/17/percentage-of-items-from-invention-vs-tech-2-bpo/ is of interest for people trying to work out percentages made from T2 BPOs.
It's about 2 years out of date now, but it is based on information from CCP themselves. That does indicate, as I expected, there is a wide spectrum of cases. Everything from BPO supplying 5% to BPO supplying 95%. For some items, an increase in BPO production via copy would be noise. For other items, even a modest increase would be a game changer where the price point shifts from invented cost to T2 BPO production cost. For some items, where BPO production remains below demand, profits from BPO are likely to go up. For some items, where BPO production suddenly exceeds demand, profits from BPO may go down. The information is two years old. Since it was published a great many changes have occured to encourage the useage of a much wider variety of T2 hulls and equipment. The playerbase has also grown quite a bit in that time. You should not base anything on those figures.
If we had current figures, that would be another matter. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
380
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:00:00 -
[627] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:This stuff is awesome, and I don't even industry! I think this comment unfortunately summarizes the main problem with feature redesign in EVE. Too many of the devs don't actually play *all* parts of the game, yet still feel qualified to comment on whether proposed changes are good or bad. I'm rather skeptical about how these changes will affect the overall game dynamics - I suspect that insufficient thought has gone into the domino effects that are likely to occur.
I'm particularly looking forward to hearing more about the "Teams" feature. If it turns out to be as it sounds, then I think we'll be seeing a lot of unsubs this summer. A very large percentage of those 50,000 characters who do manufacturing every day are playing casual and solo. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20804
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:02:00 -
[628] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:But they ARE connected. Not the outputs, no. The results of the two outputs on the market is, but that's not what I'm talking about. And with the tiny effect the BPOs will have on the supply, the chances of it coming back to alter how inventors do business is nil.
Quote:You continue to assert that any increase in T2 BPO production would just be "noise" in total production. GǪbecause for the stuff where invention is at all meaningful, it is. For the ones where it isn't, invention is inherently already pointless. 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. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3061
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:03:00 -
[629] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:This stuff is awesome, and I don't even industry! I think this comment unfortunately summarizes the main problem with feature redesign in EVE. Too many of the devs don't actually play *all* parts of the game, yet still feel qualified to comment on whether proposed changes are good or bad. I'm rather skeptical about how these changes will affect the overall game dynamics - I suspect that insufficient thought has gone into the domino effects that are likely to occur. I'm particularly looking forward to hearing more about the "Teams" feature. If it turns out to be as it sounds, then I think we'll be seeing a lot of unsubs this summer. A very large percentage of those 50,000 characters who do manufacturing every day are playing casual and solo.
I'm having a minor suspicion about teams. How they're actually in game resources to make stuff.
Mostly because of the icon at the top of the circle. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65974/1/Industry_Window_VisualTarget2.png Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3450
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:03:00 -
[630] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:You continue to assert that any increase in T2 BPO production would just be "noise" in total production. Evidence indiacte there are some T2 items where BPO production accounts for 90+% of total production.. In those cases, even a modest increase in T2 BPO production woudl be MUCH MORE than just noise. Those items are so unpopular that demand is met mostly by T2 BPO production.
Why would anyone want to build unpopular stuff? Let the T2 BPO owners have at it, as they've no other choice, unlike inventors. |
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:06:00 -
[631] - Quote
I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3061
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:08:00 -
[632] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you?
There's not a great deal they could do to fix it.
Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom.
T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:08:00 -
[633] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Entity wrote:So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?
I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated eight years was 7.9 too long Exactly. Yes, I do want those BPOs in space. This is EVE. There should be risk. I am staggered that such an old player thinks the current situation is in any way acceptable. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Oxide Ammar
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:09:00 -
[634] - Quote
Unless they make researching in POS super ******* fast I see no point of risking doing this in POS. They need like bump the mobile labs modfiers so ******* high to make it lucrative enough to do it. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:09:00 -
[635] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. T2 profits will crash with a better interface. Prices might not, depending on the slot fees, but profits will. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3450
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:11:00 -
[636] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Zifrian wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? It takes too long. Most of the time is spent waiting for the wardec to start. It is perfectly reasonable to give someone notice that you are going to attack their hi-sec assets. It is perfectly reasonable for them to respond. I doubt very much that any future mechanic would ever circumvent the wardec without replacing it with a similar notice period. So whatever timespan you are hoping for isn't very realistic. I'm very grateful to those that ask before wardec-ing. It saves them 50 million too.
I've once refunded the 50m to a corp that didn't ask first, but offered to end the war after the tower in question was onlined.
However, personally don't have a problem with towers becoming un-anchored, or even deleted, after 30 days offline. I state this despite that it would affect my own spare towers. |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:11:00 -
[637] - Quote
So in the DevBlog it's stated:
This creates some bottleneck gameplay, encouraging players to move around, use Starbases or just wait. We arenGÇÖt very satisfied with that, especially when we couple it with the ridiculously low NPC prices for installing jobs (that havenGÇÖt been changed since 2003).
Okay, we all see the bottleneck problem and most who've played the last couple of years realize that EVE has inflation issues, but this solution kills two entire sub-industries: BPO research for fee and BPC copying for fee. Wouldn't job cost scaling have done a better job of draining isk from the system without destroying established industrial ventures.
Slot removal does have another interesting consequence for Starbases; at the moment, most of the Starbases in high-security space use Mobile Laboratories to compensate for the lack of Material Efficiency Research slots in Empire space.
Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. Improve Mobile Laboratories and Assembly Arrays to compensate for such risk GÇô weGÇÖll give you final numbers as soon as we have them. This is a major nerf to every industrialist that invested in mobile labs. Lets face it, typical modules BPOs have a low enough cost that who cares if it get popped in a wardec. But the BPOs that really benefit from mobile labs: capital components, capital ships or even battleships, I just don't see anyone placing these in a mobile lab for research. But then neither do you. As you said, "(we) do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner..." Seems like some very poor reasoning was put into this argument. Is this the secret POS plan, nerf them to irrelevance so no one will care when you delete them in Winter 2015?
In turn, this allows us to change ...
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).
This is the death of several non-industry mini-professions:
mission runners who grind standings alliance/corp creation services corp standings boosters high-sec POS removal services (they might have a slight uptick at first, but I seriously doubt it will last) Additionally, this kills a major high point in many people's EVE career, the day you got you corp's standings high enough to plant your own POS without assistance -- the day you could say 'this moon is mine!' After this is implemented a day one noob will be able to plant a POS with Industrial Ship-1 and Anchoring-1. Not that they'll have a need for it as a POS won't be needed for indy after this goes live.
"So player corporations will now have the choice between the safety of NPC stations or the efficiency of Starbases to operate. The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked or be reactive enough to take the blueprints out before they go into reinforced mode."
I don't get it, you basically contradict yourself CCP. You want to create conflict over inexpensive blueprints? I just don't see how you'll be able to force industrialists to defend inexpensive blueprints, we're analytical cost analysis types. Anyone with half a brain working in indy will just write off the expense and charge it to the customers, assuming they get caught with BPOs in a POS to begin with. And again, as you said, "(we) do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner..."
|
Elene Shuiko
Karvanen Nalle Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:11:00 -
[638] - Quote
Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.
I hope I misunderstood something here, if you're going to make copy time lower than manufacturing time then the "requirement" for the print to be at the tower is completely pointless. All sensible builders are going to keep their BPOs at stations, not because of the risk but because they can build more that way. If you can get 10 copies within the same time period as you could manufacture 9 ships... it isn't really rocket science.
Removing the gimmick damage mechanic was nice but please don't replace it with another (running BPC's to the POS) if you want to run at full efficiency. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
356
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:12:00 -
[639] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:gifter Penken wrote:You continue to assert that any increase in T2 BPO production would just be "noise" in total production. Evidence indiacte there are some T2 items where BPO production accounts for 90+% of total production.. In those cases, even a modest increase in T2 BPO production woudl be MUCH MORE than just noise. Those items are so unpopular that demand is met mostly by T2 BPO production. Why would anyone want to build unpopular stuff? Let the T2 BPO owners have at it, as they've no other choice, unlike inventors. Indeed.
Don't want to make an invention profit? Compete with T2 BPO owners in weak markets for unused items that would yield little income even if T2 BPOs did not exist.
Want to make an invention profit? Work in strong markets where there is plenty of demand to go around and the price is set by inventors.
Want the advantages that T2 BPO owners have? Save up and buy one.
Don't want existing T2 BPO owners to have any advantages at all? Don't be so unreasonable. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:15:00 -
[640] - Quote
Kadl wrote: I think T2 BPOs just feel wrong to many newer players, and the perceptions and feelings cause the hate. The arguments showing a lack of advantage seem pretty clear to me. At this point the T2 BPOs have been purchased and are providing minor returns. Still they cause arguments and bad feelings. It seems like reducing their power slowly honors both the investment and the frustrated feelings.
I'd turn it around. I think T2 BPOs feel "right", and we should be able to invent them.
Why on New Eden do we have to reinvent the wheel after each and every time we build one?
Make it super hard, and super expensive, but with lots of time and effort, we too could become a T2 BPO holder.... And T2 proces would fall to the point that teh profit margin is so small, that no one would bother putting in the work and effort to invent additional T2 BPOs.
That way, we neither removed T2 BPOs, nor do we continue to have the hate and discontent that they cause newer players that can never get one from the lottery.
I saw an idea a few years back. Remove all loot drops. Make everything buildable by players.
Only meta 0 avaialble from NPC. You have to run an invention job (with data cores and lab costs) to try to invent a meta 0... say 16% success. Then on a mate 1, you have to run another invent job, with more data cores and more lab costs, and maybe 8% chance of success. Then you have to invent to get it to meta 3... 4% chance of success. 2% chance to get to meta 4. 1% chance to get to meta 5 (T2)
On average, to get a M0 BPO to: M1: 6 invent jobs M2: 18 invent jobs M3: 43 invent jobs M4: 93 invent jobs M5: ~200 invent jobs.
At 100K per invent job, 20B for a M5, on average.
The number of cores could vary by size, so that a small may cost 100K per invent, medium 200K and large 400K. That would raise the price of T2 BPO to almost 100B for a large item.
The number of "data anoms" could be adjusted to maintain datacore market price at the desired level to maintain the price of invention jobs. |
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:17:00 -
[641] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. Um... you mean that this point wasn't actually already on your list?
Hmm... supports the widely-held suspicion that the devs don't play in high-sec and don't spend time reading the non-PVP forums. This issue has been around for years and is always being brought up again and again. |
sci0gon
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
22
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:19:00 -
[642] - Quote
you guys are screwing industry to much but I don't mind seeing a nice bump on the prices of stuff in jita, more profit for me ^^
also can you give us info on build costs asap especially for those of us who do weekly to monthly builds on products or just move them to sisi already so I can look myself to find out without you guys being 3rd party to the data presented. |
Entaran
Assisted Recovery Solutions Northern Associates.
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:19:00 -
[643] - Quote
Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
As much as I'd like to support this change, I find it hard to understand how the dev team got this from the drawing board to implementation without any major hurdles. There are a number of inherent problems with this particular point (I am a huge supporter of the rest of the dev blog, including the reprocessing changes/swap to compressed ore etc).
First and foremost: The vast majority of major industrial operations are 1-3 man alt-corps. This change ENFORCES that because now you cannot lock down BPO's which can be worth ridiculous piles of isk with any level of security from corp thieves etc. And please don't start replying with "Use pos roles, setup your pos correctly etc". It takes almost no effort to get pos roles from a highsec corp and in many null/low you just have to be willing to help fuel them.
Secondly: You're adding yet another boring job to an already boring profession. Now we have to drag our bpo's from our station cans (audit cans now! more lag!) to the pos just to run a job and them drag them back again later when we pickup the produce.
Third: For major capital/supercapital operations you just changed the game (simplified it really). Now none of us will build at component arrays (effectively making them useless/worthless because nobody else uses them), we'll just spam out all the component at whatever station we work in... I see minmatar stations have unlimited manufacturing slots now... and we own them so we can set the prices. All we have to do is cart components from station to the CSAA (for a super) and start the job with a bpc?
Titan prints going up. Super prints staying the same because nobody builds supers from BPO's anyway. I hope Titan copy times come down to something reasonable (lol 4 months).
A simple alternative would've been to have the game consider the bpo to be "at the pos" when it's in use in production/research, so if the lab/array is destroyed it has a chance of dropping there or is otherwise destroyed. But remains "locked" in the station for safety at all other times. Probably easier to code too. |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:19:00 -
[644] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. T2 profits will crash with a better interface. Prices might not, depending on the slot fees, but profits will.
The problem isn't with the interface its the reduction in complexity...
T2 production should be more complex then T1 not just gated by skills. To be honest currently the skills aren't really even much of a gate into T2. Its the weeks of research and understanding the market and refine your production lines to make everything profitable. Remove the needs for POS's and remove then need for invention and now its just T1 manufacturing with more items.. that are nicely displayed for your convenience.
On the note of T2 BPO's does anyone actually think anyone will use them to produce anymore lol they're just going to be used to print isk in the form of T2 bpc's. Depending on how low they make copy times you could see the list of profitable Inventions be reduced even further then it is already. Couple this with making the system easier and i can see a lot of people dumping the idea of industry as a career, and more just another passive way to make isk. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:21:00 -
[645] - Quote
Elene Shuiko wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. I hope I misunderstood something here, if you're going to make copy time lower than manufacturing time then the "requirement" for the print to be at the tower is completely pointless. All sensible builders are going to keep their BPOs at stations, not because of the risk but because they can build more that way. If you can get 10 copies within the same time period as you could manufacture 9 ships... it isn't really rocket science. Removing the gimmick damage mechanic was nice but please don't replace it with another (running BPC's to the POS) if you want to run at full efficiency.
How much is it going to cost to make 10 copies in a station with over used lab services? |
Gargep Farrow
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:21:00 -
[646] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: I'm rather skeptical about how these changes will affect the overall game dynamics - I suspect that insufficient thought has gone into the domino effects that are likely to occur. I agree and can think of a domino or two that will come crashing down. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
357
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:22:00 -
[647] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Make it super hard, and super expensive, but with lots of time and effort, we too could become a T2 BPO holder.... That is the system we have now.
I have a small pile of T2 BPOs and I didn't get any of them from the lottery. I bought each of them with isk that I earned in one way or another. The system as it stands is good. The fact that some people don't like it, for reasons that are more often than not based in ignorance, isn't a good reason to change it. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:22:00 -
[648] - Quote
At long last my dreams are coming true. While many are going to be highly emotional about some of these changes they are necessary to make EVE a better game. I fully expect there to be some nasty surprises for other playstyles and areas of the game in this vision but it will be worth it if they are as well thought out as some of these changes.
Either this CSM is the most effective one there has ever been, or CCP's new hires are injecting very good ideas at last. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2600
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:27:00 -
[649] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race.
The reason that T1 manufacturing has such low profit margins is due to two factors:
1) The low investment of player time in the production process 2) The low investment of manufacturing slot time in the process.
Want to make 1000 units of Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1? Once you have a researched BPO, It takes 5 or 6 clicks (1 minute player time, 3 minutes if you need to place buy orders on the minerals), and ~100 production line hours.
The only way to make the process profitable (and I do not want to see this happen) is to make it either as player time intensive as T2 production (~15 clicks to build 10 units of EANM II) and/or as production line hour intensive as T2.
Not to mention T2 requires less skills than T1, not more. T1 margins are so low that you must have Material Efficiency 5 and very, very good trade skills and trade standings (which require PVE combat skills to earn efficiently). T2 just requires 4 level 1 skills to 5 (Science the only one a combat pilot wouldn't already have), a few datacore and trade skills to 3 and Material Efficiency to 4. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:28:00 -
[650] - Quote
Halia Thorak wrote: Its the weeks of research and understanding the market and refine your production lines to make everything profitable. Remove the needs for POS's and remove then need for invention and now its just T1 manufacturing with more items.. that are nicely displayed for your convenience. .
So, it is only profitable because it is stupidly cumbersome to figure out? 2 spreadsheets = no profits. 20 spread sheets = profits... so we need it to take 20 spreadsheets.
Hmmmm... And I thought a game was supposed to be fun, not work. Silly me. |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:31:00 -
[651] - Quote
Halia Thorak wrote:Zappity wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. T2 profits will crash with a better interface. Prices might not, depending on the slot fees, but profits will. The problem isn't with the interface its the reduction in complexity... T2 production should be more complex then T1 not just gated by skills. To be honest currently the skills aren't really even much of a gate into T2. Its the weeks of research and understanding the market and refine your production lines to make everything profitable. Remove the needs for POS's and remove then need for invention and now its just T1 manufacturing with more items.. that are nicely displayed for your convenience. On the note of T2 BPO's does anyone actually think anyone will use them to produce anymore lol they're just going to be used to print isk in the form of T2 bpc's. Depending on how low they make copy times you could see the list of profitable Inventions be reduced even further then it is already. Couple this with making the system easier and i can see a lot of people dumping the idea of industry as a career, and more just another passive way to make isk. I agree with what you are saying about complexity. It should be harder to efficiently produce T2.
But the current interface is such a dog that I believe it is a bottleneck of its own. I have five characters capable of T2 production. I can rarely endure the clicks long enough to cycle through them all. Certainly not every day. But if it weresl simpler I would easily double my T2 production. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:32:00 -
[652] - Quote
First up I have only read the Blue Responses in this thread, and not all 31 pages of comments, so sorry if this has been mentioned.
Given that there are 3 more Blogs to come there is allot of speculation. Based off the first one I Thought that they were mostly good changes, to my knowledge there is still a query over the retention of BPO for Compression and the new(converted) Compression array, I hope that the BPOs are retained and are required in the new arrays.
Now for comments on the Second one: Cleaning of the market groups = Good Change - Never really noticed it before but the icon for the Outpost components/improvement platforms looks a little out of place, as it has a background on the icons, most other icons have transparent backgrounds.
Stopping the Damage = Good Change - other the chance that this could overload arrays with the sudden 100 times volume increase, no real issues in this one. - Also just confirming that the existing R.A.M. BPOs output is also increasing by a factor of 100
Extra Materials = Good Change - just need to confirm that the various Cargo Container BPOs will now actually take ME into account? as currently they are 100% Extra materials. - Noticed that in the Screenshots that -- the name of the Bill of materials is changing to Industry? this is weird change. -- There are some weird arse icons instead of nice easy to read tabs? I think this is backwards step, the icons also take up more room than the previous tabs did
Ok the Slots change = Holding judgement based on future devblogs But off what is already there hears some speculation Concept is probably fine for replacing slots with increasing costs, but as to how quickly that scales will be interesting. Costs being based off the item being produced, does this mean that the time for production is no longer a factor? or that the new cost is the new base install cost?
Structure changes/Supply chain management/Scientific Networking - I can see that BPOs owned by corporations are now going to be stored in the cheapest location for copying most likely. I've been in a few corps that have run the following setup, Corp BPO Library in a Station, with members having query access and only the Directors/CEO having Take access to that Hangar. members are then able to research/manufacture from those corp owned BPOs to either that station or to the corp POS/s in system. However with this station, I can't see Directors/CEO moving BPOs for every member that wants to use the BPO in the POS. So members instead of just straight using the BPOs will now have to Copy the BPO and then take the output BPC to the POS to be able to manufacture from it.
Quote:Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements I'm sorry but this is just a plain step backwards, and frankly makes NO sense. It was bad enough when you didn't have standings requirements when you introduced POCO control to HS
Industry UI change.... Looks allot more graphical and Larger, hopefully none of the information is lost. I can see that there is a manufacturing job on screen, but I can't tell if there are any missing minerals or what minerals are in use.
Please remember for future changes that increasing the number of icons in place of easily readable text is not always a good thing.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:34:00 -
[653] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom.. The bottom for T1 modules is obviously not where you think it is.
The current manufacturing costs of most T1 modules are higher than the market price of meta versions of the module, due to the large supply of metas from NPC drops. So, who would buy/use a T1 module for a ship fit, when a better meta module is always available *and* cheaper? No demand means no reason to build.
Also, meta module prices are lower-bounded by their mineral reprocessing value. So, when the changes to reprocessing kick in, the prices of most of the meta modules are also going to drop rather precipitously.
For the most part, the only reason to build most T1 modules currently is for use in building T2 modules.
Don't just look at the proposed changes from a vet POV. Try looking at the game from a noob industry player wanna-be POV, and ask what should they be looking to build, besides T1 ammo? |
Elene Shuiko
Karvanen Nalle Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:35:00 -
[654] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Elene Shuiko wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. I hope I misunderstood something here, if you're going to make copy time lower than manufacturing time then the "requirement" for the print to be at the tower is completely pointless. All sensible builders are going to keep their BPOs at stations, not because of the risk but because they can build more that way. If you can get 10 copies within the same time period as you could manufacture 9 ships... it isn't really rocket science. Removing the gimmick damage mechanic was nice but please don't replace it with another (running BPC's to the POS) if you want to run at full efficiency. How much is it going to cost to make 10 copies in a station with over used lab services? Then again, you will also do this at your own POS, print copies in your free lab (with speed boost even) and yield EVEN more copies per hour/day compared to straight manufacturing. Copy time just needs to be above manufacturing time or else it will give us a new gimmick mechanic. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2666
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:35:00 -
[655] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Or...as the next 4 dev blogs will reveal, this is just the first step in eviscerating high sec industry and null sec industry will be given even MORE advantages that make it impossible to run either a casual high sec indy corp or a large scale dedicated industrial corp.
I am not known to be a strenuous (sov) null sec supremacy "because it's Good" supporter. But give CCP some slack please. The potential nerf to Supercaps Online(tm) is sublime and hi sec was a TERRIBLE mechanic to begin with, seeing it slowly phased out imo is a good idea, as long as there are new mechanics to allow the individuals to still afford playing this game. Think about this: in the vituperated WoW, you are statistically LESS safe against ganking than in EvE's hi sec. EvE is marketed as cold, harsh universe, if CCP makes it really so, they are just delivering what they have written on the tin.
CCP, some slack???
First off, I fail to see how this is a huge nerf to Supercaps Online. A POS with BPO's in it has still less risk of being hit than a tower with a CSAA, since a CSAA is a beacon. And we all know that supercap mfg towers are seldom hit, though it does happen. goons don't even ALLOW their renters to make supercaps, and the goons have their industrial might buried deep in very safe enclaves. Further, dev's have promised significant cuts to copying times. Depending on how big a buff, it could ensure making supercaps is easier.
Don't compare Eve to Wow. You know better than that.
And as for making Eve a cold harsh place, it is there already. These changes, along with the subsequent blogs, are targeted at wrecking high sec industry. If the CSM's goal with these changes was to reduce the amount of casual players subscribing to the game, they certainly have achieved it. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:35:00 -
[656] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. The reason that T1 manufacturing has such low profit margins is due to two factors: 1) The low investment of player time in the production process 2) The low investment of manufacturing slot time in the process. Want to make 1000 units of Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1? Once you have a researched BPO, It takes 5 or 6 clicks (1 minute player time, 3 minutes if you need to place buy orders on the minerals), and ~100 production line hours. The only way to make the process profitable (and I do not want to see this happen) is to make it either as player time intensive as T2 production (~15 clicks to build 10 units of EANM II) and/or as production line hour intensive as T2. Not to mention T2 requires less skills than T1, not more. T1 margins are so low that you must have Material Efficiency 5 and very, very good trade skills and trade standings (which require PVE combat skills to earn efficiently). T2 just requires 4 level 1 skills to 5 (Science the only one a combat pilot wouldn't already have), a few datacore and trade skills to 3 and Material Efficiency to 4.
I would disagree with all this.
The reason T1 production is so profitless is because 95% of M4 and below that gets used is rat drop. What are we left to manufacture? Ships, rigs, ammo and the few other items that rats don't drop (or not in sufficient quantities)?
I say, remove ALL rat drops below M5, and make ALL meta 1-5 items be manufactured by players. Heck, even remove the dead space and officer drops and replace them with BPCs that have to be built.
If we're going to fix manufacturing, let's really fix manufacturing, ESPECIALLY the fact that rat drops are better than the T1 we can build! |
sci0gon
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
23
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:36:00 -
[657] - Quote
ccp confirmation required.
when this change goes live will the bpos that were in the middle of production at the time be relocated to any pos mods that the production was started in or will it continue to export back to its locked down status in the station?
also is there the possibility that you guys may complete all build jobs on the server to free up the bpos so that the players can have peace of mind during the update that they are safely in the station and will have to decide after that whether or not they wish to continue to build in a pos or stick to station building?
also will there be any other purpose to high standings than what is in the game currently? |
Lfod Shi
Lfod's Ratting and Salvage
192
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:38:00 -
[658] - Quote
Well, huh. I... geeze. Um... right, there we have it. ...end transmission... GÖ¬ They'll always be bloodclaws to me GÖ½ |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2602
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:40:00 -
[659] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. The reason that T1 manufacturing has such low profit margins is due to two factors: 1) The low investment of player time in the production process 2) The low investment of manufacturing slot time in the process. Want to make 1000 units of Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1? Once you have a researched BPO, It takes 5 or 6 clicks (1 minute player time, 3 minutes if you need to place buy orders on the minerals), and ~100 production line hours. The only way to make the process profitable (and I do not want to see this happen) is to make it either as player time intensive as T2 production (~15 clicks to build 10 units of EANM II) and/or as production line hour intensive as T2. Not to mention T2 requires less skills than T1, not more. T1 margins are so low that you must have Material Efficiency 5 and very, very good trade skills and trade standings (which require PVE combat skills to earn efficiently). T2 just requires 4 level 1 skills to 5 (Science the only one a combat pilot wouldn't already have), a few datacore and trade skills to 3 and Material Efficiency to 4. I would disagree with all this. The reason T1 production is so profitless is because 95% of M4 and below that gets used is rat drop. What are we left to manufacture? Ships, rigs, ammo and the few other items that rats don't drop (or not in sufficient quantities)? I say, remove ALL rat drops below M5, and make ALL meta 1-5 items be manufactured by players. Heck, even remove the dead space and officer drops and replace them with BPCs that have to be built. If we're going to fix manufacturing, let's really fix manufacturing, ESPECIALLY the fact that rat drops are better than the T1 we can build!
You are aware that there are modules with no rat-dropped meta versions (Drone Damage Amplifiers in particular, Bastion Module too) where the exact same applies? And ammunition. Don't get started on the newbie trap that is building T1 ammo.
Rat drops being useful for something is good for the game. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
554
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:41:00 -
[660] - Quote
CCP has lost their f'n mind. CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
|
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1898
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:42:00 -
[661] - Quote
Guess it's time to sell my towers, labs, and blueprints. Nothin' left now but wasting isk in low sec.
Kudos, CCP. One more step to ending high sec. I still say you guys should just man-up and eliminate high sec, but easing people into it stretches out the subscription dollars. "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:44:00 -
[662] - Quote
Simple solution to solve the Abandoned POS issue.... Calendar already shows you when you run out of fuel... After X days .. say 7 days... a unfueled POS can be openly attacked... It's deemed abandoned. Much similar to finding cars on the side of the road.. after X days they are free salvage.... Pos runs out of fuel... 7 days tick by.... Pos is attackable by all. Very simple.
As for certain people who keep saying this is a attack on "Casual" eve players, all the Casuals I know are ecstatic about this change and can't wait for it to hit. Hell check over the many Eve Facebook groups, or Blogs. Except for losing the standings grind that we all did... Every industrialist in Hi-sec is going hyper happy like a puppy who found a new leg to hump over this change. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2602
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:46:00 -
[663] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:As for certain people who keep saying this is a attack on "Casual" eve players, all the Casuals I know are ecstatic about this change and can't wait for it to hit. Hell check over the many Eve Facebook groups, or Blogs. Except for losing the standings grind that we all did... Every industrialist in Hi-sec is going hyper happy like a puppy who found a new leg to hump over this change.
This, acquiring 5.0 faction standings for a highsec POS (or 6.0 to get one with more choice of location) is a very casual-unfriendly endeavour.
It's not all that long if you know how to do it efficiently, but if you do not - and try to do it via storyline missions like I did when I was new.... ugh. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:46:00 -
[664] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Halia Thorak wrote:Zappity wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom. T2 is somewhat gated with skills, so it's not quite such a race. T2 profits will crash with a better interface. Prices might not, depending on the slot fees, but profits will. The problem isn't with the interface its the reduction in complexity... T2 production should be more complex then T1 not just gated by skills. To be honest currently the skills aren't really even much of a gate into T2. Its the weeks of research and understanding the market and refine your production lines to make everything profitable. Remove the needs for POS's and remove then need for invention and now its just T1 manufacturing with more items.. that are nicely displayed for your convenience. On the note of T2 BPO's does anyone actually think anyone will use them to produce anymore lol they're just going to be used to print isk in the form of T2 bpc's. Depending on how low they make copy times you could see the list of profitable Inventions be reduced even further then it is already. Couple this with making the system easier and i can see a lot of people dumping the idea of industry as a career, and more just another passive way to make isk. I agree with what you are saying about complexity. It should be harder to efficiently produce T2. But the current interface is such a dog that I believe it is a bottleneck of its own. I have five characters capable of T2 production. I can rarely endure the clicks long enough to cycle through them all. Certainly not every day. But if it weresl simpler I would easily double my T2 production.
Oh absolutely I only do it on two toons and its still far to many clicks.
Reducing redundancy is fine, i love when they do it. I shouldn't have to click 8 times to install a single Invention job when clicking twice would be more then enough.
What i don't like is when they destroy the the complexity because some complains that its to complex for them.
Not everyone has to do everything in eve and that's what I use to love about it. More and more it seems ccp wants pvp to be the main focus and everything else to be a passive source of income for that end goal. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2602
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:47:00 -
[665] - Quote
On the POS cleanup issue, I think the best solution is to make it so that attacking an offline POS is a suspect offense, not a criminal offense. (Online remains criminal).
Solves everything. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:48:00 -
[666] - Quote
Elene Shuiko wrote:gifter Penken wrote:Elene Shuiko wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. I hope I misunderstood something here, if you're going to make copy time lower than manufacturing time then the "requirement" for the print to be at the tower is completely pointless. All sensible builders are going to keep their BPOs at stations, not because of the risk but because they can build more that way. If you can get 10 copies within the same time period as you could manufacture 9 ships... it isn't really rocket science. Removing the gimmick damage mechanic was nice but please don't replace it with another (running BPC's to the POS) if you want to run at full efficiency. How much is it going to cost to make 10 copies in a station with over used lab services? Then again, you will also do this at your own POS, print copies in your free lab (with speed boost even) and yield EVEN more copies per hour/day compared to straight manufacturing. Copy time just needs to be above manufacturing time or else it will give us a new gimmick mechanic.
Nothing is free in a POS because you still have to play for fuel, this is a common misconception. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
554
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:49:00 -
[667] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Come on. Post the next blog already. CCP are employing a simple and oiled strategy well known in the marketing world: when you approach a (yearly) period of low sales (this period being one) start throwing appetizers to catch interest and glue potential buyers to you. Posting stuff in phases is exactly an expectation raiser => fidelization.
It also dilutes rage....
No wonder CCP is sliding down hill - marketing continues to gain power
CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
gifter Penken
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:51:00 -
[668] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:I would also like to hear how you are going to fix T1 module manufacturing, which has been moribund for years.
You don't still expect new players to jump right into T2 module manufacturing or ship building, do you? There's not a great deal they could do to fix it. Anyone can manufacture T1 things. So it's a race to the bottom.. The bottom for T1 modules is obviously not where you think it is. The current manufacturing costs of most T1 modules are higher than the market price of meta versions of the module, due to the large supply of metas from NPC drops. So, who would buy/use a T1 module for a ship fit, when a better meta module is always available *and* cheaper? No demand means no reason to build. Also, meta module prices are lower-bounded by their mineral reprocessing value. So, when the changes to reprocessing kick in, the prices of most of the meta modules are also going to drop rather precipitously. For the most part, the only reason to build most T1 modules currently is for use in building T2 modules. Don't just look at the proposed changes from a vet POV. Try looking at the game from a noob industry player wanna-be POV, and ask what should they be looking to build, besides T1 ammo?
RIGS!
Rigs and ammo, and that is pretty much it.
You nail it! It is the rat drop that is better than can be built that kills T1 manufacturing, and in turn, that kills T2 manufacturing as industrialists are forced to find something, anything, that is profitable.
If CCP wants to fix industry....
1) remove all M1-M4 rat loot. 2) Allow invention on BPOs to increase their meta level to M1, M2... up to and including M5 (T2). 3) Add some salvage to the named meta 1-4 bill of materials to ensure demand for salvage items, compensate mission runners that salvage for lost loot. The higher the meta, the more minerals and salvage needed in manufacturing jobs to ensure a smooth increase in price for higher meta level. 4) Undo the proposed change to remote BPO use. I do not understand the intent. Force us to have alt corps to do research and copy?
|
stoicfaux
4502
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:51:00 -
[669] - 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! Who are you and what have you done with the real CCP? On second thought, here's some spare limestone I had left over in my backyard.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
373
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:51:00 -
[670] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Come on. Post the next blog already. CCP are employing a simple and oiled strategy well known in the marketing world: when you approach a (yearly) period of low sales (this period being one) start throwing appetizers to catch interest and glue potential buyers to you. Posting stuff in phases is exactly an expectation raiser => fidelization. It also dilutes rage.... No wonder CCP is sliding down hill - marketing continues to gain power How dare a corporation attempt to make money! This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20805
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:52:00 -
[671] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Guess it's time to sell my towers, labs, and blueprints. Nothin' left now but wasting isk in low sec. Kudos, CCP. One more step to ending high sec. I still say you guys should just man-up and eliminate high sec, but easing people into it stretches out the subscription dollars. How does this in any way GÇ£endGÇ¥ highsec? 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. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
373
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:53:00 -
[672] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ginger Barbarella wrote:Guess it's time to sell my towers, labs, and blueprints. Nothin' left now but wasting isk in low sec. Kudos, CCP. One more step to ending high sec. I still say you guys should just man-up and eliminate high sec, but easing people into it stretches out the subscription dollars. How does this in any way GÇ£endGÇ¥ highsec? He has been subjected to the worst of all perils: a minor inconvenience. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2556
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:54:00 -
[673] - Quote
any chance to ad the ability to merge BPCs? If two BPCs have the same properties (beside runs remaining) it would allow to merge them into one BPC and therefore allow longer jobs. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20805
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:54:00 -
[674] - Quote
Querns wrote:Tippia wrote:How does this in any way GÇ£endGÇ¥ highsec? He has been subjected to the worst of all perils: a minor inconvenience. Tbh, I'm not even sure it's going be to be an inconvenience. A lot of it just makes manufacturing a whole lot easier and user-friednly. 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. |
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
154
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:58:00 -
[675] - Quote
Rapscallion Jones wrote:So in the DevBlog it's stated:
In turn, this allows us to change ...
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).
This is the death of several non-industry mini-professions:
mission runners who grind standings alliance/corp creation services corp standings boosters high-sec POS removal services (they might have a slight uptick at first, but I seriously doubt it will last)
mission runners who grind standings Jump clone service is still viable alliance/corp creation services Again people don't want to train those skills still viable[*] corp standings boosters Again People will still pay for these as they want to use level 4's as soon as they can
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
Gargep Farrow
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:01:00 -
[676] - Quote
Halia Thorak wrote:Elene Shuiko wrote:gifter Penken wrote:Elene Shuiko wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. I hope I misunderstood something here, if you're going to make copy time lower than manufacturing time then the "requirement" for the print to be at the tower is completely pointless. All sensible builders are going to keep their BPOs at stations, not because of the risk but because they can build more that way. If you can get 10 copies within the same time period as you could manufacture 9 ships... it isn't really rocket science. Removing the gimmick damage mechanic was nice but please don't replace it with another (running BPC's to the POS) if you want to run at full efficiency. How much is it going to cost to make 10 copies in a station with over used lab services? Then again, you will also do this at your own POS, print copies in your free lab (with speed boost even) and yield EVEN more copies per hour/day compared to straight manufacturing. Copy time just needs to be above manufacturing time or else it will give us a new gimmick mechanic. Nothing is free in a POS because you still have to play for fuel, this is a common misconception. And fueling all those new POS's is something that I doubt CCP or anyone posting here has thought about. I have a feeling that the %14 NPC station cost is going to be a bargain. |
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
211
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:06:00 -
[677] - Quote
Loving the changes, and I hardly do industry!
Why use a multiplication factor of 100 on the R.A.M.'s etc? Why not just use a factor of 10?
Using your example, instead of the invul now requiring 60, it would require 6.
This gives you more room for growth in the future (I shiver at the thought of a future big item requiring something ridiculous like 60,000), and just keeps the numbers a bit more sensible imho.
Also, will you be reducing the m3 of R.A.M.s etc?
As to the removal of standings to anchor a pos in hisec... won't this reduce the (already low) incentive to anchor pos's in lowsec? One of the few benefits of anchoring a pos in lowsec is you don't need standings. Now why would anyone anchor a pos for simple manufacturing in lowsec if they can anchor a pos in hisec anywhere?
I also don't like that this change kills a small but vibrant player service, in the form of corp creation and pos anchoring services.
However, I do like the idea of removing standings to anchor pos's. So I would suggest instead, add some sort of bonus to standings. For example, if your standings are high in a particular faction, your pos fuel consumption is lower, or your manufacturing speed is increased, or you can make more copies per job, research faster, etc.
In other words, removing the standings requirement for anchoring a pos is a good thing... but there should be some compensatory replacement value for grinding racial standings so the gameplay that surrounds this isn't butchered.
Just my two bytes.
GG What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free public roams! Visit http://www.redemption-road.com or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for more information! |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
216
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:09:00 -
[678] - Quote
Did you all immediately feel for Grendell unlocking and locking 100's of blueprints again? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20807
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:09:00 -
[679] - Quote
Greygal wrote:Why use a multiplication factor of 100 on the R.A.M.'s etc? Why not just use a factor of 10?
Using your example, instead of the invul now requiring 60, it would require 6. Most likely because they're currently percentage-based and doing it in batches of 100 makes for an easy and yet familiar transition. Also, I seem to recall that there are things that do other multiple-of-5% damage, so it would have to be factors of 20 at least anyway.
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. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2602
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:14:00 -
[680] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Greygal wrote:Why use a multiplication factor of 100 on the R.A.M.'s etc? Why not just use a factor of 10?
Using your example, instead of the invul now requiring 60, it would require 6. Most likely because they're currently percentage-based and doing it in batches of 100 makes for an easy and yet familiar transition. Also, I seem to recall that there are things that do other multiple-of-5% damage, so it would have to be factors of 20 at least anyway.
Yep a significant number of items use multiples of 5%. Void L comes to mind (65% damage) as the first one of the top of my head. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
|
Tarikla
Projet Aurora
42
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:19:00 -
[681] - Quote
Thead Enco wrote:Rapscallion Jones wrote:So in the DevBlog it's stated:
In turn, this allows us to change ...
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).
This is the death of several non-industry mini-professions:
mission runners who grind standings alliance/corp creation services corp standings boosters high-sec POS removal services (they might have a slight uptick at first, but I seriously doubt it will last)
mission runners who grind standings Jump clone service is still viable alliance/corp creation services Again people don't want to train those skills still viable corp standings boosters Again People will still pay for these as they want to use level 4's as soon as they can Jump Clones services are offered free by many corps, including the highly famous EACS. So why bother reinventing the wheel when there's free services ? Same for Alliance/Corp creation services, those are offered free of charge and with no waiting.
And for corp standings boosters, 99% of the demand is for HS POSes. For access to missions, they are services for boosting personal standings in place. But this change effectively kills the corp selling/boosting business. |
EvilIsMyName
Exploitation Industrial Group Gold Star Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:21:00 -
[682] - Quote
Taking away the barriers to having a high sec pos and allowing them in all systems is stupid. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish. It appears to me CCP just wants to sell more Plex, so they change a game dynamic which will allow even 1 day old players to have an expensive toy, if they buy and sell a Plex or 2.
The proposed POS changes make even less sense after the removal of the static ice belts and making them into anomalies.(which I think was a brilliant move)
It is long past time for POS's getting some love in a revamp, but allowing anyone and everyone to have one isnt the fix.
I think time would have been better spent rebalancing the Orca and Rorqual, given the upcoming compression changes and the repurposing of the Itty IV into the Miasmos.
CCP, in my opinion, your industry revamp hits on some items, but misses on the "Big" item. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1463
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:31:00 -
[683] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Zifrian wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? It takes too long. 25 hours is GÇ£too longGÇ¥? Yeah, no. You're going to have to come up with something far better than that. What you're saying here is that the solution is ample, but you're simply too impatient. That's your problem, and not sufficient reason to change anything. Quote:The pos is abandoned or the corp doesn't care enough about it to fuel it and online it. It is literally taking up space for no other reason than to "save a spot". Yes? And? That's as good a reason as any. It's a resource, and they've claimed it. You can try to take it from them by starting a war, same as with any other large asset they have. If you're in a rush, have you tried making an offer to the corp for the spot? Quote:Change the rules: Abandoned POSs can be attacked with suspect flag. How do you determine what counts as GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥? Yes, I think it is too long. There are tons of systems with towers just sitting there for no other reason than to hold the spot. Is that really intended? Again, I do not think so. It doesn't support the risk vs. reward goal of EVE especially if we are now going to use POSs much more frequently for industry.
What counts as abandoned? How about offline? No one is going to leave a tower offline in nullsec/lowsec why should it be any different in highsec? Also, 24 hours to go and bash a structure that takes hours without a sufficient fleet to destroy. I don't see the point in continuing that type of play style. I, as others here, have also suggested offline towers have shield hps removed so they are easier to destroy. No one in the game likes structure bashing and timers, so why should we continue to support it?
But I'm not going to argue with a forum warrior like yourself, especially when you just argue for the status quo on a patch that is clearly changing it. I don't agree with you and you didn't change my opinion on this, nor did I you. We are not alone in our opinions either.
But I'd leave you with this thought, why is the status quo ok? Isn't this whole industry revamp all about changing the status quo? Why can't we change it instead of using the wardec mechanic to achieve an end that really only deals with people trying to find a spot for a tower? What harm would it cause for someone to actually have to manage risk of a high sec pos and pay the price for not? What harm is there to removing the 24 hour window to a POS that someone doesn't feel they need to fuel?
If this game and this update is supposed to be about more risk vs. reward, then this change is a completely fine with me and I think it supports that goal.
Anywho, CCP will make the final call and I've offered my opinion. o/ GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20813
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:40:00 -
[684] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:Yes, I think it is too long. There are tons of systems with towers just sitting there for no other reason than to hold the spot. Is that really intended? Sure, why not? They got there first and can now leverage their speed. If you want it, pay for it (one way or another) to take it off their hands.
They put in the effort to find a free spot, so why should you have the leave to just come in and take whatever you want without doing the same?
Quote:What counts as abandoned? How about offline? No one is going to leave a tower offline in nullsec/lowsec why should it be any different in highsec? Because highsec is different. And just because it is offline does not mean it is abandoned GÇö it just means it currently isn't in use. You can't really determine if it's abandoned or not without checking if someone is willing to defend it, and to do that, you have to give them time to react. Wardecs provide this as it is.
Quote:Also, 24 hours to go and bash a structure that takes hours without a sufficient fleet to destroy. I don't see the point in continuing that type of play style. No one in the game likes structure bashing and timers, so why should we continue to support it? Because it provides a good balance between the ability to attack and the ability to mount a defence. Any mechanic that replaces it would, if anything, increase the wait to ensure that wardecs are not being rendered obsolete. Now, if you want to argue for a reduction in the wardec activation time, then that's a different matter but it is the baseline against which other methods will have to be measured and it is probably the one that has to remain the quickest method.
Quote:But I'm not going to argue with a forum warrior like yourself, especially when you just argue for the status quo on a patch that is clearly changing it. Good thing that I'm very explicitly not doing that, then. Well, good for me at least; not so good for you since it means your ad hominem fallacy is even less valid than it might otherwise have been. 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. |
Sylvanium Orlenard
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
41
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:41:00 -
[685] - Quote
It is extremely hard to intillegently comment on changes to industry when you announce that there are 5 (or 6?) more Dev Blogs to come to cover all areas of industry (not counting the changes that will come in what I presume will be the point release, namely to inventions and reverse engineering). So CCP, pls pls pls write and release the rest of the Dev Blogs in this series so that I can understand more how my game play will be affected. For example I'm extremely worried that the fact that I'll have to more around the blueprints (be it be copies or originals) along with the raw materials now, but for all I know in one of the next dev blogs you made BPCs and researched BPOs stackable.
However there are several points I want to bring up.
1. You mentioned that all slots will be removed from the game and the price scale will be implemented everywhere. This is concerning because for those of us using a POS, we already pay a price for those slots, these slots are much much more expensive the the ones that are currently available in NPC stations, we pay for them by fueling our POS, we can do some math and spreadsheet foo to figure out the actual price of these slots. However if slots aren't going to be a thing anywhere and the ISK sink mechanism will be added to Assembly Arrays and Mobile Laboratories then you are effectively saying that I'll be paying twice (once with POS fuel and the second with the ISK sink price scheme) for the right to use said arrays or labs, Am I correct? (again the answer to this riddle may reside in one of the upcoming dev blogs)
2. As has been pointed out at many many occasions throughout this thread, Locking and Unlocking BPOs are going to be a serious problem because now I need to move said BPOs more often then I ever did before. (in order to either build at the POS arrays or to find a cheaper station). If I can't rely on the BPO lock down anymore then I won't have anyone else in my industry corp but my own alts, which is sad and removes partnership and group gameplay.
3. You mentioned in the Dev Blog that copy times will be decreased in order to make it a viable option to rectify point number 2. Which is all nice however, T2 components BPOs require items (reports I believe) in order to make copies of them, which couple with the new escalating price scheme will effectively raise the price of production and force me to haul yet more stuff. (but who knows maybe you have an answer for that waiting for me in an future dev blog)
4. POS standing requirement removed for H-Sec, is worrisome. Some corporations will have more trouble, not less to get their own moon in H-Sec that is respectively close to a trade hub. Why do you ask? Just look at what happened with POCOs, while I'm sure the intend was to put more power to the ppl what really happened is that the big H-Sec corporations took over as many planets has possible and now extort taxes over the small corp players who wish to do PI. I predict that most of the moons in "The Forge" for example will quickly be taken over and a number of placeholder dead sticks will be placed instead and those same big corps will either sell the spots or most likely rent the spots. (Pay me a monthly fee or we war-dec you and you loose that moon). Making it easier from a game mechanic point of view to install a POS also makes it easier for the big guys and thus give them more chances to choke out the small corps. In RL we have Governments that apply regulations against monopolies for example, in EVE requiring standings to anchor a tower played a similar role. This is a good thing. I'm not against revisiting how standings work for POSes but I am against seeing this mechanic disappear entirely and not be replaced by an other.
5. In the Dev blog you mentioned, that you want the ISK vs RISK calculation to be taken into account, which is good but in my opinion forcing BPOs to be brought into a POS array to take advantage of said array is tipping the scale to far towards the RISK side of things. Example, a player specializes in making Command Ships or all kinds, to accomplish this is has 1 T1 battlecruiser BPO, researched, for each command ship and he decides to anchor his POS at a system that has no NPC station with Industry slots of any kind. Associating an ISK value to those BPOs is troublesome at best, because while its easy to figure out how expensive an unrehearsed BPO is, the research one has a different value depending on the price you paid to research them (sliding pay scale for research slots) not counting the 3 to 6 months you spend to do the actual research on them. If he were to loose his tower and all which is in it, then for this player to be able to return to his old set-up would take almost a full year, that is a full year that he has to find other sources of income because he command ship production was blown up. That is a huge, huge amount of risk, and the ISK was probably just enough for him to a for a PLEX every month and do some PvP. In my opinion the balance between ISK and Risk is broken in that instance.
That being said I really really really look forward to the rest of the Dev Blogs in this series so that I can make a more informed decision about it. Until then I count myself has Cautiously Optomistic |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2602
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:44:00 -
[686] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient?
The issue is that wardeccing to remove an inactive POS requires several things.
1) A 50m ISK payment 2) Waiting 24 hours 3) Assembling a fleet to do 20-50m EHP of damage (that's four to ten battleship hours, this isn't lowsec where dreads are an option)
No requirement is onerous on its own (except the EHP of a large POS, ugh, ban them in highsec already), however, combined they make sure players can't really remove POSes on a whim. POS removal in highsec is a methodical, planned, deliberate operation. But putting one up need not be.
Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Drahcir Nasom
Independent Manufacturers Independent Manufacturers Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:46:00 -
[687] - Quote
If we are going to have to start building from BPCs instead of expensive BPOs at POS, please increase the maximum number of runs for a BPC or allow us to queue BPCs while still only using 1 'slot' from a characters maximum number of slots.
Example, I have a 125mm Autocannon 2 BPO which in a Rapid Array I can build 745 guns per week. The maximum number of runs for a BPC from this BPO is 100, which is less than 24h production. I currently build from 42 T2 BPOs every week, and I set each of them doing 7 days production and then once a week I restart them. If I'm having to restart jobs every day running from BPCs then I am just going to give up producing as it then becomes a day job and not a game.
Similarly with capital components, at the moment a run of components for our capital production includes 240 drone bays, we build them from 4 BPOs, putting in a run of 60 on each BPO taking about 5.5 days. With capital component BPCs limited to 5 runs, we'd need 48 BPCs to do the same, and if we were to use just 4 slots to build them it would mean someone having to restart a new job every 10 hours or so.
As a rule of thumb you need to be looking at the maximum number of runs for a BPC to be no less than the number of that item that can be built in say 10 days in the most optimal production environment (rapid/component/ship/ammo array with a high level of PE on the BPC, Industry skill at lvl 5 for the character and possibly even a Beancounter -4% implant) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20816
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:47:00 -
[688] - Quote
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:3. You mentioned in the Dev Blog that copy times will be decreased in order to make it a viable option to rectify point number 2. Which is all nice however, T2 components BPOs require items (reports I believe) in order to make copies of them, which couple with the new escalating price scheme will effectively raise the price of production and force me to haul yet more stuff. (but who knows maybe you have an answer for that waiting for me in an future dev blog) This is a good question.
I don't know if it was your (CCP's) intent or not to make copying the new go-to method for distributed manufacturing, but if it is, have you taken into consideration the full range of requirements for those copies? In quite a few cases, copying is currently deliberately slow and difficult compared to other things you can do to a BPO GÇö will those cases be re-examined and rebalanced to match the new workflow? I suppose that some of this will be answered in detail in the research devblog, but already now it would be nice to know if it's something you've thought of or if it's just a new meta that has been exposed in this thread?
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon. But again, that's the main problem: what counts as GÇ£inactiveGÇ¥ or as GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥? Just being offline isn't enough GÇö there are plenty of legitimate reasons for leaving a tower offline.
If there's a wish to remove the grind part on properly abandoned POSes, then the idea of a hacking deployable linked earlier is a far more equitable solution since it only works on towers no-one actually cares about. Either way, removing the waiting period to anything less than the time it takes using a wardec is just a disaster waiting to happen since you have now invalidated a large point of wardecs. 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. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1267
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:51:00 -
[689] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? The issue is that wardeccing to remove an inactive POS requires several things. 1) A 50m ISK payment 2) Waiting 24 hours 3) Assembling a fleet to do 20-50m EHP of damage (that's four to ten battleship hours, this isn't lowsec where dreads are an option) No requirement is onerous on its own (except the EHP of a large POS, ugh, ban them in highsec already), however, combined they make sure players can't really remove POSes on a whim. POS removal in highsec is a methodical, planned, deliberate operation. But putting one up need not be. Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon.
maybe after 30 days of inactivity they could become un owned and offlined scoopable to the first person that finds it available
no need for wardecs no need for tedious pos bashing
of course I don't know how feasible something like is within eve's coding infrastructure but if it is, does it sound reasonable ?
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3451
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:52:00 -
[690] - Quote
gifter Penken wrote:RIGS!
Rigs and ammo, and that is pretty much it.
You nail it! It is the rat drop that is better than can be built that kills T1 manufacturing, and in turn, that kills T2 manufacturing as industrialists are forced to find something, anything, that is profitable. I don't disagree, but there are still lots of even non-T2 that are decent for manufacturing:
Some non-T2 stuff that I've built for profit, because they sell to pretty much everyone: * T1 Salvagers * T1 Data Analyzer * T1 Relic Alalyzer * T1 probes * T1 probe launchers * T1 Small Tractor Beams * T1 Strip Miners * T1 Miners * T1 gang links * T1 cloaks * T1 mobile warp disruptors * T1 Combat Drones * T1 Sentries * T1 fighters * T1 bombers * T1 ammo, including scripts and cap charges * T1 ECM (I can't explain either) * T1 small weapons * T1 bomb launchers * T1 rigs * T1 frigates (Love you RvB!) * T1 cruisers (bulk buyer for T2) * T1 battleships (bulk buyer for T2) * T1 shuttles (I like to drop these at random stations when moving stuff with my freighters) * T1 Industrials * T1 freighters * Orca * Noctis * Navy and pirate ships * Personal mobile structures * Structures * Containers * Capital components * R.A.M.
I'm reminded of Sarurday Night Live's "First CityWide Change Bank" sketches about an obviously unprofitable business: All the time, our customers ask us, "How do you make money doing this?" The answer is simple: Volume. That's what we do.
|
|
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
216
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:00:00 -
[691] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Halia Thorak wrote:I have a couple of questions and comments about the changes, but over all the look really good.
Firstly how do you intend to address invention and the to make it less clunky without totally breaking it with these changes. In the current pos system if I can't run jobs remotely from a station I need to go to a POS to run the jobs which locks down a toon to the system as the cycle times are only 1.25 hours, do you intend to streamline this?
Secondly I think that a hard cap of 14% is faaaar to low, the fee's as they stand right now are a joke compared to the cost of fueling a pos per slot. The current prices even at 500% its almost equal the cost per hour to run a job in a reasonably fit pos.
Lastly while we're changing copying times I'd like to see T2 BPO copy times remain where they are, if they become more viable then invention you will likely see that system in its current state fizzle out really really quickly. People who got lucky in the T2 BPO lottery already have piles of money, there is absolutely no need to line their pockets even more (imo they should all be done away with to make it fair but oh the rivers that would be cried if you did that). You will be able to install invention jobs remotely.
I hope you will need a skill for that?
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2602
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:02:00 -
[692] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon. But again, that's the main problem: what counts as GÇ£inactiveGÇ¥ or as GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥? Just being offline isn't enough GÇö there are plenty of legitimate reasons for leaving a tower offline. If there's a wish to remove the grind part on properly abandoned POSes, then the idea of a hacking deployable linked earlier is a far more equitable solution since it only works on towers no-one actually cares about. Either way, removing the waiting period to anything less than the time it takes using a wardec is just a disaster waiting to happen since you have now invalidated a large point of wardecs.
If a tower has been out of fuel for a full week, it's 'properly abandoned'. It should be able to be taken down (or possibly stolen if this can be coded) by anyone that wants to.
Wardecs would absolutely remain the main way you'd go after anyone with a POS that is actually using it. Wardeccing a corp where noone has logged on in six weeks is not some exciting activity. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:03:00 -
[693] - Quote
Well that kinda ruins my cap building future and my current t2 career. Nobody in their right mind will have cap bpos in a pos. |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
126
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:05:00 -
[694] - Quote
Finally I will be able to reprocess my procurer stack for a profit. No longer will I need to spend years selling them off. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3451
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:05:00 -
[695] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:If a tower has been out of fuel for a full week, it's 'properly abandoned'. It should be able to be taken down (or possibly stolen if this can be coded) by anyone that wants to.
Wardecs would absolutely remain the main way you'd go after anyone with a POS that is actually using it. Wardeccing a corp where noone has logged on in six weeks is not some exciting activity. ... and towers offline with fuel? |
Jake Centauri
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:09:00 -
[696] - Quote
So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20820
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:11:00 -
[697] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:If a tower has been out of fuel for a full week, it's 'properly abandoned'. Not really, no. Just because it's been a week doesn't mean no-one will come and defend it if you try to get rid of it. And as mentioned, what you describe will create just as many GÇ£litteringGÇ¥ POSes as we have right now.
Quote:It should be able to be taken down (or possibly stolen if this can be coded) by anyone that wants to. You already can-áJust wardec and blow it up.
Quote:Wardeccing a corp where noone has logged on in six weeks is not some exciting activity. No, but it's going to have to be the minimum amount of time required to destroy the stuff since anything shorter will only ever be abused. So again, if you want a mechanism for blowing up POSes that no-one cares about, then there are ways of doing that that could work. Bypassing wardecs or otherwise getting the spot in less than, say, 48h, isn't one of them. 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20820
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:12:00 -
[698] - Quote
Jake Centauri wrote:So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this? Not at all. It was effort that paid for itself many times over a long time ago. It's a sunk cost and you should be very very happy that you never have to pay it again. 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. |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:16:00 -
[699] - Quote
Drahcir Nasom wrote: Example, I have a 125mm Autocannon 2 BPO which in a Rapid Array I can build 745 guns per week. The maximum number of runs for a BPC from this BPO is 100, which is less than 24h production.
You do realize that I have to put in new invention jobs every 1.25 hours, given your number of 745 it would take me about 150 invention jobs to produce enough bpc's (quick match i might be off a bit) to produce that in a week on top of already having to work off of only bpc's. Lets fix one system before buffing another that's already working better then the rest.
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1464
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:18:00 -
[700] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Good thing that I'm very explicitly not doing that, then. Well, good for me at least; not so good for you since it means your ad hominem fallacy is even less valid than it might otherwise have been. You are implicitly arguing for it though. Although, it is pretty obvious. Does that make it explicit? I also have the feeling you have a high sec pos that is offline from time to time.
Not good for me? Heh, I really don't care. You, by your post count and quoting ability, clearly do. Well good for you, you pointed out that I think you are a forum troll and let some ad hominem slip (although is it a fallacy if I know I believe own opinion?).
Anywho, sleep well knowing that you won some inconsequential argument with a random guy on the internet that plays the same video game you do. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
554
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:23:00 -
[701] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jake Centauri wrote:So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this? Not at all. It was effort that paid for itself many times over a long time ago. It's a sunk cost and you should be very very happy that you never have to pay it again.
You sure are quick to trivialize... running for CSM?
He put significant investment and effort into something that CCP is now going to give away for free to people who will compete with him directly.
CCP continues to screw vets over their attempt to keep their chin above water...
CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:26:00 -
[702] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Tippia wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon. But again, that's the main problem: what counts as GÇ£inactiveGÇ¥ or as GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥? Just being offline isn't enough GÇö there are plenty of legitimate reasons for leaving a tower offline. If there's a wish to remove the grind part on properly abandoned POSes, then the idea of a hacking deployable linked earlier is a far more equitable solution since it only works on towers no-one actually cares about. Either way, removing the waiting period to anything less than the time it takes using a wardec is just a disaster waiting to happen since you have now invalidated a large point of wardecs. If a tower has been out of fuel for a full week, it's 'properly abandoned'. It should be able to be taken down (or possibly stolen if this can be coded) by anyone that wants to. Wardecs would absolutely remain the main way you'd go after anyone with a POS that is actually using it. Wardeccing a corp where noone has logged on in six weeks is not some exciting activity. Absolutely. There should be cost or risk associated with allowing your tower to go offline. At the moment it is the only strategy that makes sense if you use it occasionally (like I do). Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:30:00 -
[703] - Quote
What I'm really liking about this and other changes is the slow but steady overhaul of the POS system elements contained within these other systems. Great to hear people don't have to grind missions just to put up a tower! The sneak peek at the UI looks great too, this is going to be huge! X |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
369
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:41:00 -
[704] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense.
Nanites. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20820
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:43:00 -
[705] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:You are implicitly arguing for it though. Yes, by saying that these are great changes, I'm implicitly arguing for the status quo. Project more.
If you don't care that your arguments are easily dismissed as fallacies, then that just means you think of your arguments as worthless and irrelevant. That's not a good thing.
KIller Wabbit wrote:You sure are quick to trivialize... running for CSM?
He put significant investment and effort into something that CCP is now going to give away for free to people who will compete with him directly. He put significant investment and effort into something that he gained lots of benefit from. It is a sunk cost due to a horrible flaw. He can benefit from this improvement just as much as everyone else. 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. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort Against ALL Authorities
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:52:00 -
[706] - Quote
Too many fundamental changes all at the same time, some good some bad. It will be very difficult to figure out what is broken in the system if you change every fundamental aspect of it.
You are changing the interaction of blueprints with poses and Conquerable stations. You are adding non player controlled taxes to nullsec stations (Seriously wtf, let players control 0.0). As you currently have it written your asking people to put potentially hundreds of billions of prints into poses in order to manufacture ./ or copy them. Seems a bit unfair, especially for those involved in capital production as you have managed to add many hours of additional hauling and more risk that the sometimes narrow profit margins are worth.
We already have a huge amount of risk in the form of month (or more) long builds, why do we need to put another 100 bil of risk into the pot in the form of BPOS that we cant lock down (in poses)? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
377
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:55:00 -
[707] - Quote
There's a thread of entitlement that seems to be percolating through this forum thread, and I'd like to put it to rest before someone who isn't actually beholden to such irrational thoughts takes it as fact.
Grinding standings does not entitle you to permanent benefits. Your payment for grinding the standings once (or purchasing a standings character on the Character Bazaar) has been years and years of benefit. For some, this is nearly a decade of uninterrupted benefaction. Now, the old, clunky mechanic has been put to rest. While your benefaction is being drawn to a close, you can't simply ignore all the benefits it's given you.
Incidentally, if any of you have characters that have 9.0+ standings with Caldari Navy and are so oft-put by these changes that you're going to sell your character, contact me privately. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Sylvanium Orlenard
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:04:00 -
[708] - Quote
Has the possibility of only making the act of "copying" allow for the BPO to be in station and the copy job to be at a POS? Any other type of jobs require that the blueprint be at the location. |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:25:00 -
[709] - Quote
I am amazed that CCP would want to change the way POSes are used to research and produce while at the same time changing the way slots work in NPC stations. Wouldn't one change at a time be a little more prudent? Why not go ahead and throw in the walking in stations mod too and swing for the fences? |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:27:00 -
[710] - Quote
Querns wrote:There's a thread of entitlement that seems to be percolating through this forum thread, and I'd like to put it to rest before someone who isn't actually beholden to such irrational thoughts takes it as fact.
Grinding standings does not entitle you to permanent benefits. Your payment for grinding the standings once (or purchasing a standings character on the Character Bazaar) has been years and years of benefit. For some, this is nearly a decade of uninterrupted benefaction. Now, the old, clunky mechanic has been put to rest. While your benefaction is being drawn to a close, you can't simply ignore all the benefits it's given you.
Incidentally, if any of you have characters that have 9.0+ standings with Caldari State and are so oft-put by these changes that you're going to sell your character, contact me privately.
And all that baloney is just your opinion. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20822
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:27:00 -
[711] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:I am amazed that CCP would want to change the way POSes are used to research and produce while at the same time changing the way slots work in NPC stations. Wouldn't one change at a time be a little more prudent? Why not go ahead and throw in the walking in stations mod too and swing for the fences? Mainly because one change becomes rather pointless without the other and because many of the mechanics are used in both places so you have to do it all at once. 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. |
tiewan
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:28:00 -
[712] - Quote
Dear CCP,
Your proposal pleases me.
You may proceed. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:29:00 -
[713] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jake Centauri wrote:So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this? Not at all. It was effort that paid for itself many times over a long time ago. It's a sunk cost and you should be very very happy that you never have to pay it again. Unless you happen to be among the newer players, who have been grinding standings more recently to put up their first POS.
But, I guess those players are the "lower class" of EVE... lol. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20822
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:31:00 -
[714] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Unless you happen to be among the newer players, who have been grinding standings more recently to put up their first POS.
But, I guess those players are the "lower class" of EVE... lol. Then you still have a couple of months' head start on the land rush. 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. |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:34:00 -
[715] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mainly because one change becomes rather pointless without the other and because many of the mechanics are used in both places so you have to do it all at once.
Feel free to elaborate at any time |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:39:00 -
[716] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:gifter Penken wrote:RIGS!
Rigs and ammo, and that is pretty much it.
You nail it! It is the rat drop that is better than can be built that kills T1 manufacturing, and in turn, that kills T2 manufacturing as industrialists are forced to find something, anything, that is profitable. I don't disagree, but there are still lots of even non-T2 that are decent for manufacturing: Some non-T2 stuff that I've built for profit, because they sell to pretty much everyone: ... list deleted for brevity... I was speaking of T1 *modules* for which there are meta versions available, which make up the bulk of the T1 modules in the game. There are only a handful of modules which do not have a meta version, dropped by NPCs.
I was also speaking of items which can be built and (profitably) sold by new players, who are just getting learning how to manufacture stuff in EVE - not vet industrialists.
If you edit your list accordingly, you'll find it to be much, much shorter. |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
85
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:40:00 -
[717] - Quote
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense. Nanites.
Where does the nanite paste come from? That stuff isn't cheap you know. |
Varun Arthie
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:46:00 -
[718] - Quote
I there are no longer going to be remote industry jobs then what is going to be of the skill "supply chain management"? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1100
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:46:00 -
[719] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:Tippia wrote:Mainly because one change becomes rather pointless without the other and because many of the mechanics are used in both places so you have to do it all at once. Feel free to elaborate at any time The station slot changes are what justifies the POS changes. Without the station changes the POS changes are just unnecessarily punitive to POS owners. And without the POS changes the station slot cost scaling can be risklessly bypassed. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 03:18:00 -
[720] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Unless you happen to be among the newer players, who have been grinding standings more recently to put up their first POS.
But, I guess those players are the "lower class" of EVE... lol. Then you still have a couple of months' head start on the land rush. I don't think they look at it that way, though. More likely, they will see it as a lot of wasted game time, and possibly unsub out of irritation or frustration.
This change - and many other recent and upcoming changes (not just the industry ones) - tend to have a much greater (negative) effect on the newer players. And, every time this happens, we lose a few more players, which isn't good for the continuing health of the game.
So, is some form of reimbursement of the POS standings grind a bad idea? No - in fact, it is a good idea to help retain those younger players.
And, remember that when the learning skills went away, we *did* all get reimbursed for the SP, regardless of how much and for how long we individually benefited from having them trained up.
Everyone wins, no one loses. Best way to (re)design a feature. |
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2605
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 03:38:00 -
[721] - Quote
Querns wrote:There's a thread of entitlement that seems to be percolating through this forum thread, and I'd like to put it to rest before someone who isn't actually beholden to such irrational thoughts takes it as fact.
Grinding standings does not entitle you to permanent benefits. Your payment for grinding the standings once (or purchasing a standings character on the Character Bazaar) has been years and years of benefit. For some, this is nearly a decade of uninterrupted benefaction. Now, the old, clunky mechanic has been put to rest. While your benefaction is being drawn to a close, you can't simply ignore all the benefits it's given you.
Incidentally, if any of you have characters that have 9.0+ standings with Caldari State and are so oft-put by these changes that you're going to sell your character, contact me privately.
This, this, many times this.
Signed - someone that ground out ~6.8 faction-to-player standings with the Gallente Federation, including the first 5.1 purely by storyline missions because I didn't know better at the time.
There is no reason that future players should have to suffer from the utterly un-fun mechanics of standings grinding just to put up a POS. (I also think standings should not have any impact on trading for this very reason, let PVE content have its own rewards, not be prerequisites to participate in the non-PVE aspects of EVE). https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
146
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 03:52:00 -
[722] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:It's happening! I am very scared of this.
Way too many changes coming all at once. I highly doubt CCP has considered the second and third order effects of all of these changes. The easy ones to see are only the beginning. Lock downed BPOs are now doomed to pay the extra fees for being researched or built from as they will be highly unlikely to be actually in a POS since they can't be locked down.
Mineral prices are going to go up as a major source of them will be heavily nerved, reprocessing. And you are nerfing the retrievers and mackinaws a bit too. I see 8-10 isk per grit chunk soon. Maybe that will make mining more profitable, but even as a maxed out miner I rarely mine as it is mind numbingly dull. I just see PVP getting even more expensive.
Also my Corp required standings to facilitate a High Sec POS and that looks like its been a major waste of time. thanks... I have several years worth of star base charters saved up...another waste
Ok I do like the RAM changes. That makes sense.
Not a big fan of the extra materials either although I think i would rather keep that and my repro rates of loot drops.
Slot removal sounds interesting, but that really lessons the point of a research POS, which is then totally killed off by the not being able to remote research lock downed BPOs in a NPC station.
More commentary in a future post |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 03:55:00 -
[723] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:[quote=GreasyCarl Semah]The station slot changes are what justifies the POS changes. Without the station changes the POS changes are just unnecessarily punitive to POS owners. And without the POS changes the station slot cost scaling can be risklessly bypassed.
Now we are going to make the case that POSes have zero risk. I don't even know why I bother reading the garbage in these threads.
|
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
106
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:04:00 -
[724] - Quote
CCP please surprise me and respond to this post.
I really like almost all of this blog.
However.
STANDINGS.
this will be the second or 3rd change to standings that is removing an element from the sandbox.
I would like to see you give standings more meaning and importance. Especially in Highsec. I think it is an interesting mechanic that adds depth to the game-play and creates variety in identity and groups in the game.
It adds a value to the player or corp that has worked to gain standings to anchor a POS in highsec. It used to mean something in FW, and it used to be able to give RP players another layer to judge other players in game.
It seems in regards to standings you keep making the game easier (and I hate to say it but it certainly appears with the direct benefit of assisting the nullsec alliance players.) One of the good balance points was most Nullsec entities were limited in high sec or forced to use smaller alt corps or higher mercs to have a safe highsec POS or industry wing.
I absolutely think that there should be more risk and reward for all activities that occur in Nullsec, but they don't need easier access to run rough shod over highsec. Standings is a good mechanic to help vary the power bases into different areas of the game and I think you should reconsider this change.
Also I did not see you give any good reason for removing it and I think I have presented some good reasons for keeping it.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
995
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:08:00 -
[725] - Quote
I am entirely supporting of removing the standings grind. I don't think grinding should be part of the game at all.
If you could buy standings (as in tags for sec status) then I wouldn't mind retaining the standings requirement. But not if you have to grind those mind numbing missions. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Nick Bete
The Scope Gallente Federation
282
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:32:00 -
[726] - Quote
There's really no point in giving any "feedback"on any of this as it's a fait accompli and will be released as presented.
What I see here is a lot of stick and very, very little carrot. Looks like Dinsdale was right about the slow nerfing of high sec and CCP's dogged insistence on forcing players into low and null space. |
Nathalie LaPorte
Republic University Minmatar Republic
242
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:36:00 -
[727] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
Now we are going to make the case that POSes have zero risk. I don't even know why I bother reading the garbage in these threads.
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.
Nick Bete wrote:]What I see here is a lot of stick and very, very little carrot.
I see a field where you can grow carrots, or sticks.
Perhaps we're each seeing what we want to see.
Why do you want to see a stick so badly? |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:36:00 -
[728] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:Utremi Fasolasi wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense. Nanites. Where does the nanite paste come from? That stuff isn't cheap you know. Considering that there are Remote Armor and Remote Hull Repair modules that run on Capacitor only, I don't think that it is a stretch to assume that free Repair in distant areas of space are based on the same mechanic :) |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:42:00 -
[729] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:CCP please surprise me and respond to this post.
I really like almost all of this blog.
However.
STANDINGS.
this will be the second or 3rd change to standings that is removing an element from the sandbox.
I would like to see you give standings more meaning and importance. Especially in Highsec. I think it is an interesting mechanic that adds depth to the game-play and creates variety in identity and groups in the game.
It adds a value to the player or corp that has worked to gain standings to anchor a POS in highsec. It used to mean something in FW, and it used to be able to give RP players another layer to judge other players in game.
It seems in regards to standings you keep making the game easier (and I hate to say it but it certainly appears with the direct benefit of assisting the nullsec alliance players.) One of the good balance points was most Nullsec entities were limited in high sec or forced to use smaller alt corps or higher mercs to have a safe highsec POS or industry wing.
I absolutely think that there should be more risk and reward for all activities that occur in Nullsec, but they don't need easier access to run rough shod over highsec. Standings is a good mechanic to help vary the power bases into different areas of the game and I think you should reconsider this change.
Also I did not see you give any good reason for removing it and I think I have presented some good reasons for keeping it.
One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1252
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:45:00 -
[730] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. This is extremely important so please deliver some news on it.
Removing the standing requirement means it is trivial for a large alliance to simply drop an unfueled small pos on every single moon in highsec and starve people out. Wardec costs will be huge for anyone trying to remove the pos'es while the alliance doesn't have to spend a cent on fuel for them to lock down the slot.
So there needs to be a way a small corp can get a slot without paying a massive wardec fee. If that is turning wardec costs on their head so that it's based on the size of your alliance, not the size of your target, so small corps can nibble cheaply around the edges of a large alliance. That works. A hacking mechanic also works. A decay mechanic also works. All three of these idea's also work together.
But there needs to be something. |
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2607
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:47:00 -
[731] - Quote
Caldari 5 wrote:One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space.
You are aware that a nullsec alliance can simply pay a standings service a few ISK (200m is the going price IIRC) to get them to create a new corp with 7.0 faction standings, have a member that's trusted with 5b take complete control of that corp, set up the 20 or whatever number HS POSes the alliance wants, and then admit the corp to join the alliance?
That is - exactly the same process that most (in the know) highsec research POSes are established with too, minus the part about joining the alliance. Only difference is, a tower bearing the alliance ticker "Goonswarm Federation" is more likely to be subject to wardecs and attacks than one bearing the ticker "Mission BLITZ".
Which is fine, because Goons can (if they care enough to bother) mount a fairly serious POS defense in highsec. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Unkind Omen
Next Day Sun
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:59:00 -
[732] - Quote
That's quite a bunch of great changes there. However, would you be so kind to NOT remove empire standing requirements for POS installation in high-sec, but decrease those by 2 instead, so that you can anchor POS at 0.5 with 3, 0.6 with 4 and so on. Please don't dumb the current EVE meta around corporation trading and at least some effort to have a POS in high-sec. Otherwise you will see people dodging offwars by just moving between corporations with no risk involved in the process of manufacturing.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
6336
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 04:59:00 -
[733] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Zifrian wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? It takes too long. 25 hours is GÇ£too longGÇ¥? Yeah, no. You're going to have to come up with something far better than that. What you're saying here is that the solution is ample, but you're simply too impatient. That's your problem, and not sufficient reason to change anything. Quote:The pos is abandoned or the corp doesn't care enough about it to fuel it and online it. It is literally taking up space for no other reason than to "save a spot". Yes? And? That's as good a reason as any. It's a resource, and they've claimed it. You can try to take it from them by starting a war, same as with any other large asset they have. If you're in a rush, have you tried making an offer to the corp for the spot? Quote:Change the rules: Abandoned POSs can be attacked with suspect flag. How do you determine what counts as GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥? It forces a pointless grind on the players for no benefit to any relevant party. It all makes sense, if the parties are actively defending it, since it gives them a chance to protect their assets and creates an opportunity for a fight between the attacker and the defender. An abandoned POS is an admission by neglect, that they have no interest in defending that asset and therefore the attacker is just forced to waste money and time on a grind, that doesn't make the game better, the attacker hates to do and the defender doesn't care about. The game will be better if there is a simpler and more convenient way to remove or re-purpose such assets by active players. There is a minor fringe where people might have temporarily forgotten their POS fuels and accidentally caused them to be "abandoned", but such cases could be easily handled by having a grace period before total defense shutdown on the POS, if you're inclined to cater to that fringe group. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
295
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:19:00 -
[734] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space. You are aware that a nullsec alliance can simply pay a standings service a few ISK (200m is the going price IIRC) to get them to create a new corp with 7.0 faction standings, have a member that's trusted with 5b take complete control of that corp, set up the 20 or whatever number HS POSes the alliance wants, and then admit the corp to join the alliance? That is - exactly the same process that most (in the know) highsec research POSes are established with too, minus the part about joining the alliance. Only difference is, a tower bearing the alliance ticker "Goonswarm Federation" is more likely to be subject to wardecs and attacks than one bearing the ticker "Mission BLITZ". Which is fine, because Goons can (if they care enough to bother) mount a fairly serious POS defense in highsec. Personally I'd like to see that loophole closed, so that if a Corps Standings dropped below the required amount for more than 7 days then the Faction navy Turns up and starts shooting the POS(or other similar effect) |
E6o5
Tyler Durden Demolitions
262
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:22:00 -
[735] - Quote
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).
Are there still restircted to moons or how is anywhere defined exactly? I don't agree with the removal of standing requrements:
- it kills a mini profession (corp creation, tower setup service)
- it removes consequences from the game (you can have terrible standings standings with a faction by having fought them for years but can setup a tower in their territory)
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:32:00 -
[736] - Quote
E6o5 wrote: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). Are there still restircted to moons or how is anywhere defined exactly? I don't agree with the removal of standing requrements:
- it kills a mini profession (corp creation, tower setup service)
- it removes consequences from the game (you can have terrible standings standings with a faction by having fought them for years but can setup a tower in their territory)
Yes, still restricted to moons. Flick through the dev posts for confirmation.
I am very pleased standings are being removed. I don't like having to interact with any NPC in game, least of all the awful missions for grinding status. It is entirely artificial and a complete waste of time. NPC grinds is not what should define EVE. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
E6o5
Tyler Durden Demolitions
262
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:47:00 -
[737] - Quote
Tetania wrote:Ok. I'm intrigued and I'll wait patiently for the rest of the plan to be unveiled.
As someone who builds Titans I'd just like to get another voice behind considerations for POS building.
Reducing copy time would certainly be viable for Hull Building after a brief delay to get copies started after the first post patch build that will be fine.
Components tho. Assuming a 1man corp which is going to be a must without lockdown. You still need to keep either 30Bil of BPOs in a POS anc choose betwen gambling on a successful defense or destroying around 20Bil in minerals to retrieve the BPOs while the POS is being reinforced. Or drastically increase your hauling from Refine minerals in station and haul to POS in system. To Refine minerals in Station and haul through a stargate to an Amarr station and then haul components from station to POS to build the ship off a BPC.
I already use 8 freighters multiboxed and consider the existing movement excessive. This would be hundreds of trips.
Upping the copies on a component BPC to 45-50 would be start as long as copy time is <= build time.
Otherwise allowing mineral recovery when jobs are cancelled would be an option but it forces a very very high attention level on POSes and makes eve a literal job to avoid catastrophic loss of assets.
I know supercap builders are the 1% but please don't make the extreme edge cases of ****** mechanics worse for us.
Death to all supers :P |
Ming The Merciless
Orbital Reclamation Services
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:50:00 -
[738] - Quote
I tried really really hard to read all the comments up to this point. So please forgive me if I missed where any of my questions or points where answered.
We(my corp) own a lot of BPO's, and we've spent a very very large amount of time and Isk(fuel/bpo cost) researching the ME and PE of those BPO's(like a crazy amount of time/research). We currently have a research and production POS setup. The BPO's live in a station, and are free to use for the members of the corporation remotely at the POS. We(the corporation) own and bought them, and we(the corporation) did the research to get them to where they are today. They are extremely valuable. For that reason they are locked down, non-removable from the station where we have our corp office. Nobody besides the CEO is trusted to be able to take/move them.
It is my understanding that with the changes proposed, we will no longer be able to copy or research the BPO's using our POS without them being moved to the POS because the station were our corp office is does not have copy or research slots(and i didn't see anywhere in the current announcement that they where adding all flavors of slots to all stations, maybe 4th blog that happens). In fact, there are only 32 stations in all of the Metropolis region that have copy/ME or PE research slots. 32 stations out of 432 stations in the region.
I'm also going to guess that of those 32 stations a majority have their corp office rosters full or nearly full so moving to them is not currently really an option.
So if all of that is correct, what I see for my loyal employees and corp mates is an end to the way we operate. We will not be moving our BPO's to our POS - One extended illness or a two week holiday could result in returning to what has literally taken years and hundreds of man/woman hours to build and research destroyed by medical treatments or vacation.
We won't be moving our BPO's to a new corp office in another place because those places are few and far between, and I'm guessing the moons will be just as scarce in those systems.
Even if we moved the low value BPO's to the POS the "POS" isn't a thing, it's a collection of separate containers that would need blueprints moved around depending on what somebody was trying to do, ME/PE/Invent/Build because that's where the slots were/are open.(Future dev blogs may explain how that might be mitigated). As CEO I like my guys;however, i don't trust them as far as I can hit with 1400 artillery so I would have to be out there moving them around for them. Not what I signed into do all day in my "game".
So lucky me I guess. I(as CEO) will be the sole person who can use our BPO's with any semblance to the way things used to be. I can sneak them out to the POS and put them in a secured division hangar of whatever module I need them in, and use them and sneak them back to the corp office at the station when I'm done. But it will be me and me alone because...
1. Only a small number of stations can do copies/me/pe research, and we don't live at/near one. 2. Our POS would need the BPO's at it to do ME/PE/Copies and that isn't worth the risk or micro-management.
Did i interpret the proposed changes correctly based on my current scenario?
Not looking for non-constructive feedback from nullsec sov holding, blue doughnut living-in "industry guru's" I acknowledge ahead of time we play the game differently and that's Ok; However, I believe(maybe wrongly) that many high/low/nullsec small time Indy groups will be affected similarly. |
Royaldo
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
103
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 05:51:00 -
[739] - Quote
Its good, industry needed some help. However, I am a little ... well not impressed.
Tbh it sounds like a boring expansion. "Volvo, its boxy but good". Kinda like that.
The last good expansion was the wormhole one. Cus it added new CONTENT. SEXY CONTENT.
Just saying, this is a bit dry and boring. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
314
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:11:00 -
[740] - Quote
Ming The Merciless wrote:I tried really really hard to read all the comments up to this point. So please forgive me if I missed where any of my questions or points where answered.
We(my corp) own a lot of BPO's, and we've spent a very very large amount of time and Isk(fuel/bpo cost) researching the ME and PE of those BPO's(like a crazy amount of time/research). We currently have a research and production POS setup. The BPO's live in a station, and are free to use for the members of the corporation remotely at the POS. We(the corporation) own and bought them, and we(the corporation) did the research to get them to where they are today. They are extremely valuable. For that reason they are locked down, non-removable from the station where we have our corp office. Nobody besides the CEO is trusted to be able to take/move them.
It is my understanding that with the changes proposed, we will no longer be able to copy or research the BPO's using our POS without them being moved to the POS because the station were our corp office is does not have copy or research slots(and i didn't see anywhere in the current announcement that they where adding all flavors of slots to all stations, maybe 4th blog that happens). In fact, there are only 32 stations in all of the Metropolis region that have copy/ME or PE research slots. 32 stations out of 432 stations in the region.
I'm also going to guess that of those 32 stations a majority have their corp office rosters full or nearly full so moving to them is not currently really an option.
So if all of that is correct, what I see for my loyal employees and corp mates is an end to the way we operate. We will not be moving our BPO's to our POS - One extended illness or a two week holiday could result in returning to what has literally taken years and hundreds of man/woman hours to build and research destroyed by medical treatments or vacation.
We won't be moving our BPO's to a new corp office in another place because those places are few and far between, and I'm guessing the moons will be just as scarce in those systems.
Even if we moved the low value BPO's to the POS the "POS" isn't a thing, it's a collection of separate containers that would need blueprints moved around depending on what somebody was trying to do, ME/PE/Invent/Build because that's where the slots were/are open.(Future dev blogs may explain how that might be mitigated). As CEO I like my guys;however, i don't trust them as far as I can hit with 1400 artillery so I would have to be out there moving them around for them. Not what I signed into do all day in my "game".
So lucky me I guess. I(as CEO) will be the sole person who can use our BPO's with any semblance to the way things used to be. I can sneak them out to the POS and put them in a secured division hangar of whatever module I need them in, and use them and sneak them back to the corp office at the station when I'm done. But it will be me and me alone because...
1. Only a small number of stations can do copies/me/pe research, and we don't live at/near one. 2. Our POS would need the BPO's at it to do ME/PE/Copies and that isn't worth the risk or micro-management.
Did i interpret the proposed changes correctly based on my current scenario?
Not looking for non-constructive feedback from nullsec sov holding, blue doughnut living-in "industry guru's" I acknowledge ahead of time we play the game differently and that's Ok; However, I believe(maybe wrongly) that many high/low/nullsec small time Indy groups will be affected similarly.
Not to mention having to lock/unlock 100s of BPOs everytime you decide to move because of changes in prices or whatnot,
|
|
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:22:00 -
[741] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Alyxportur wrote:You didn't explain how the price scaling will or will not be implemented for sovereignty nullsec. Does this mean that outposts will be forced into this pricing scheme? or will they remain a manually specified cost? or will we have the ability to choose between one or the other since, as it is nullsec, we own the outpost. They did: outposts have the same cost scaling mechanic and that part goes into a sink, the station owner can also manually specify a cost. What was not specified is how fast they scale up - if, say, an amarr station with 100 simultaneous jobs has the same cost as a highsec station with 100 or if its lower, and I assume that will be mentioned when they also mention what they're doing with the slot bonus upgrades.
Perhaps the upgrades reduce the scaling costs by a %.
It would be nice if players were able to use the mechanic to dynamically calculate fees though. It would mean an empire's income could automatically adjust to wherever production and research occurs in their space stations. Such income doesn't compare to renter or moon income, so it doesn't seem likely to cause too much contention. Even if players don't get to use it, I suppose many of us are curious to know the actual algorithm for calculating the ISK sink fees. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:31:00 -
[742] - Quote
At the risk of giving poor Dinsdale an aneurism, what about allowing TCUs (or whatever) in highsec? These would not affect gameplay in any way other than giving the TCU holder a share of the industry fees that currently go to NPCs. For bonus points, allow the TCU holder to apply an additional percentage above the weighted 0-14% rate defined by usage.
It would definitely fuel highsec conflict. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:33:00 -
[743] - Quote
Royaldo wrote:Its good, industry needed some help. However, I am a little ... well not impressed.
Tbh it sounds like a boring expansion. "Volvo, its boxy but good". Kinda like that.
The last good expansion was the wormhole one. Cus it added new CONTENT. SEXY CONTENT.
Just saying, this is a bit dry and boring. You have clearly not done much industry. It badly needed an expansion. Or two. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
George Wizardry
Asian P0RN
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:35:00 -
[744] - Quote
Hi, I think modifying the game to allow more is great but........
To my untrained MMO eye it appears as if all the latest changes/additions to Eve are pushing more and more towards a pure PvP environment and so far away from the true sandbox of equal mix PvP/PvE as possible.
Creating POS's in all high sec just gives the PvP's a chance to wardec your corp and blow them up.
Variable costing of jobs sounds good but have a hard coded upper limit or make it that each job type will take a specific amount of time e.g copying takes 1 week + 1 day per copy
If CCP really wants to have more PvP in the game that's ok I'll stop playing but I have a better idea :)
With-in High/low and null-sec create solar systems ( preferably chained together so it is possible to avoid them ) dedicated PvP and PvE and mixed area's. PvP high sec has a timer that takes concord 2 or 3 times as long to respond and low and null sec the same as now. The PvE high/low/null area's players are unable to shoot at any other player unless shown as a criminal red tag. But the pirates/npc's are exponentially harder than the existing mixed area's e.g high sec gets pirate cruisers as standard, low sec gets pirate bc's and null gets pirate battleships along with making missions more difficult etc
For me this makes a lot more sense in that the sandbox is still open to all and includes all the changes you want to make while making a lot more ppl in both PvP and PvE groups happy :)
Just my $0.02isk worth |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:44:00 -
[745] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Querns wrote:El 1974 wrote:No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work. If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution. Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec?
EHP also needs to come down. The clutter in wormhole space tells us the problem is not limited only to highsec protection. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2609
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:53:00 -
[746] - Quote
Caldari 5 wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space. You are aware that a nullsec alliance can simply pay a standings service a few ISK (200m is the going price IIRC) to get them to create a new corp with 7.0 faction standings, have a member that's trusted with 5b take complete control of that corp, set up the 20 or whatever number HS POSes the alliance wants, and then admit the corp to join the alliance? That is - exactly the same process that most (in the know) highsec research POSes are established with too, minus the part about joining the alliance. Only difference is, a tower bearing the alliance ticker "Goonswarm Federation" is more likely to be subject to wardecs and attacks than one bearing the ticker "Mission BLITZ". Which is fine, because Goons can (if they care enough to bother) mount a fairly serious POS defense in highsec. Personally I'd like to see that loophole closed, so that if a Corps Standings dropped below the required amount for more than 7 days then the Faction navy Turns up and starts shooting the POS(or other similar effect)
Why do you think that the game would be better if only the hardcore round the clock PVE players have access to highsec POS research?
Why not also impose other arbitrary grinds, like "You may not inject skillbooks for capital ships until you have completed 170 incursion sites", or "You may not copy blueprints until you have defeated 25 players in solo PVP?", or "You may not sit in a Hulk until you have suicide ganked four Hulks".
All of those requirements are significantly less onerous than the "your corp's average faction-to-player standing must remain above 7.0", and all are just as arbitrary.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2609
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 06:57:00 -
[747] - Quote
George Wizardry wrote:Hi, I think modifying the game to allow more is great but........
To my untrained MMO eye it appears as if all the latest changes/additions to Eve are pushing more and more towards a pure PvP environment and so far away from the true sandbox of equal mix PvP/PvE as possible.
Creating POS's in all high sec just gives the PvP's a chance to wardec your corp and blow them up.
Variable costing of jobs sounds good but have a hard coded upper limit or make it that each job type will take a specific amount of time e.g copying takes 1 week + 1 day per copy
If CCP really wants to have more PvP in the game that's ok I'll stop playing but I have a better idea :)
With-in High/low and null-sec create solar systems ( preferably chained together so it is possible to avoid them ) dedicated PvP and PvE and mixed area's. PvP high sec has a timer that takes concord 2 or 3 times as long to respond and low and null sec the same as now. The PvE high/low/null area's players are unable to shoot at any other player unless shown as a criminal red tag. But the pirates/npc's are exponentially harder than the existing mixed area's e.g high sec gets pirate cruisers as standard, low sec gets pirate bc's and null gets pirate battleships along with making missions more difficult etc
For me this makes a lot more sense in that the sandbox is still open to all and includes all the changes you want to make while making a lot more ppl in both PvP and PvE groups happy :)
Just my $0.02isk worth
Every single element of EVE has always been PVP, including the PVE. This isn't changing.
The other miner in the belt is competing for your asteroids. The other inventor in the system is competing for limited copy and invention slots. The other mission runner will loot Faint Epsilon Warp Scramblers every now and again, and each one they loot reduces the profit you get selling your ones. And that other mission runner is buying ammo, pushing up the price you pay for it. Every mission NPC you down adds more ISK into the overall game economy, contributing to inflation and thus hurting every single player with a positive wallet balance.
And that's not even touching on players shooting each other.
If you want non-PVP 'EVE', log into the test server, where the market is seeded by NPCs so you don't have to deal with real-loss PVP in trading. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2609
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:01:00 -
[748] - Quote
Zappity wrote:
EHP also needs to come down. The clutter in wormhole space tells us the problem is not limited only to highsec protection.
I don't have a problem with POS EHP in general, a large POS takes about eighty dreadnought-minutes to destroy - short enough to not drag, long enough to drive conflict.
It's disposing of POS clutter in areas where dreadnoughts are not allowed (highsec) or not realistic to field (C1-3 WH space and maybe C4) that is the problem. Instead of 80 dreadnought-minutes, you need 500 battleship-minutes. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 --áPsychotic Monk for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space BORG Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:01:00 -
[749] - Quote
Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
That brings up some very important questions for me, as we currently have our blueprints "locked up" at a station that has neither production or research slots currently. Also the process of locking and unlocking them is a super huge hassle.
Will it be possible to lock them up at pos structures? We use this system to make them publically available to the corp, without the risk of them being stolen or taken away. With your new system it would be impossible to keep them locked up, what means they are gone from the avaiability for all. What is a very viable thing as we use them together, as something we worked for, and earned for all of us. Now we get them taken away cause of those changes?
Or will the lock up system changed dramatically, so it is easier to lock and unlock them in bulks? To lock and unlock them on starbase structurs, and that quickly enough to be unlockable if a starbase is under attack?
By forcing the blueprints to be within the starbase structure, you make the "locking up" mechanics unusuable. We would need a system to make them as save as currently for "public usage" within the corp, yet still preserve the ability to instantly take them out if the structure is in danger. How are you making this possible? How are you compensating for that?
Just thinking about having to unlock all of our corporation BPOs and to relock them somewhere else makes me cringe. This locking system is pure torture.
We need a new locking system for blueprints, that makes them save on starbases, yet also allows emergency takeout if it is under attack by authorized persons like CEO or directors. Without this system you are making blueprint ownership as a corporation that makes them available for all members a huge hassle that breaks some valuable "we earned this BPO together in a corporation event and now have it available for all" gameplay.
How are we supposed to use the advantage of our starbase, if we cannot provide the blueprints in the same way as before to everyone? Also our station has not a single rroduction or research line currently, so we also cannot use those to make copies to take out to the starbase.
And unlocking hundrets of BPOs with the current system, to transfer them to a station that has those lines, to lock them back up there? No thanks.. may we open tickets for GMs to do that for us? You after all force us to move them out..... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5354
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:07:00 -
[750] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: CCP, some slack???
First off, I fail to see how this is a huge nerf to Supercaps Online. A POS with BPO's in it has still less risk of being hit than a tower with a CSAA, since a CSAA is a beacon.
We still don't know about how heavy the impact of the new changes will be, so it's too early to get all hissy & pissy.
But what I know NOW is that I am surprised you compare and value a "mere" supercap risk with the risk losing its BPO, which has epically huge research costs.
Any alliance, actually any individual who's vaguely efficient (including me) can buy some supercaps "just because", ISK is not so hard to farm. But time is. Time is the most valuable commodity in game (and in RL), it's way more strategically important to efficiently employ time - including getting BPOs ready - than the mere products which cost a lot, but cost a disposable commodity (money).
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: And we all know that supercap mfg towers are seldom hit, though it does happen. goons don't even ALLOW their renters to make supercaps, and the goons have their industrial might buried deep in very safe enclaves.
They'd be totally dumb if the allowed that.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Don't compare Eve to Wow. You know better than that.
I don't compare them. I talk by difference. EvE is the one MMO meant to be "hardcore PvP sandbox", WoW is the casual player, mild paced (for most) theme park.
Yet it's in EvE that we find a whole totally non sandbox, protected area where one may entertrain in the most mild way.
Anyone who has been in Crossroads at level 10 and got PKilled for 1 hour trying to do their quests, knows this simple concept I am saying.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: These changes, along with the subsequent blogs, are targeted at wrecking high sec industry. If the CSM's goal with these changes was to reduce the amount of casual players subscribing to the game, they certainly have achieved it.
I have had to guard POSes in low sec and NPC null sec. It's a bit harsher than doing the same in hi sec, I doubt everyone will scramble to Goon-happy-lands (sov) or NPC null.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Don Aubaris
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:17:00 -
[751] - Quote
While there are a few good things in the Blog, this is hardly a better world.
* POS's all over high-sec is good. But the standing should stay. There is only one thing worse then a bad change, and that is a change that disrespects the effort a player made to get somewhere. This doesn't mean it should stay as is. It should be made alot stricter even. If takes x standing to set up a POS in a system with sec-status x then it should stay above x-3 or so or your POS stops working. Living in High-sec should have its cost too.
* Unlimited slots in NPC-stations, even with a cost, is silly and goes in the wrong direction. Once again you show a complete lack of vision. With POCO's in highs-sec you pushed players into something that should never happend. Now that you have the chance to push players into something good, you don't do it.
Players should get 1 slot of every kind in a NPC-station. Just to try it out. They should get 1 (or 2 ) slots of every kind in low-sec (to push people a little bit in that direction). And all the rest should be done in POS's. POS's should have slots that can be rented out to the general public (with a cost, related to the standing of the public ofcourse, and the possibility to block below a certain level) or contracted to a specific player/corps/alliance. Not that this means you should have access to the POS. There should be an (indestructable) POCO-like office outside the shields. A player puts this stuff in...and get this stuff out later. Without the POS owner being able to mess with it. Then you get player-interaction and a good NPC-nerf. This introduces risk for the clients (not the owners since they can safely do all the stuff within the shields) and give pirates a new target. With the POS -defenses jumping in the defense of its customers depending on their status.
A corps should only be able to put 1 POS up in high-sec. This to ensure there is enough room for everyone. (and yes..of course they will setup dummy corps). A Non-active POS should be removable after 1 month of inactivity (without a war-dec) and activity must be atleast 1 month before the counter is reset. (otherwise they'll just throw in 1 fuel-block every month)
This would make POS's a lot more attractive in high-sec. That requires another defense-mechanism or the small corps have no chance. A POS must be indestructable in high-sec. If you want a POS in a certain system that is full, you'll just have to offer the owner a price that he will accept. Trade is the motor of Highsec. Not violence.
That doesn't mean POS's should be safe all the time. You cannot conquer them. But you can rob them one the shields are down. Pirates can attack a POS without a war-dec. A POS should have it defenses (just as they do have now). And Concord will intervene eventually. But the delay is a mix of POS-Owner and Pirate influence with CONCORD. A Pos-owner can have a contract with concord to intervene after x hours. With the price going up the smaller x is. A pirate-group can bribe concord to add a delay to that. So a Pirate must estimate the value of the POS-contents, evaluate the defenses, guess the concord-response time, .... Can they rob it before their time runs out? And will they make a profit?
So if a small corps takes a break for 14 days, it can hire CONCORD to have a faster reaction time. When the corps is active, the defenses can be lead by the players themselves.
I think this will limit the violence against POS's but still make it possible. But only the stupid and high networth ones will be at risk.
But it's already mid-april...bit late to publish a dev blog. These things should be done atleast 6 months ahead. |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:17:00 -
[752] - Quote
Removing standings requirement from hisec poses removes one of the few (and weak) incentives to set up industry in lowsec.
Would it be possible to consider some sec status related bonus to manufacturing and research (and related activies) to improve this aspect?
|
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:21:00 -
[753] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Aliventi] Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention.
That's the current plan, yes.
This would suck. T2 BPO's should go the way of the dinosaur. New inventors already have a hard enough time competing with T2 BPOs ME/PE ratings as well as overall costs applied to final manufacture of said T2 items. IMHO the 2 systems are incompatible and the game should have one or the other and not both. |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
296
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:28:00 -
[754] - Quote
Crosspost: In reference to this interface picture Possible SISI config
This post mainly addresses the choice of icons:
I like a lot of it, I doubt if a dev reads this gd complaint but I do agree with the icons OP. I've doen a lot of industry and the icons are not intuitive as icons should be, they NEED to have rollovers at the least. Same goes for materials. Everything else in game is text or numeric data, moving over to graphics is an extra mental task. I could learn the icons, I could speed up the conversion with time, but they are not intuitive. Like many Microsoft Icons are:)
Icon design requires designers willing to go to a deeper layer of psyche, these icons are cognitive and not instinctual. To get through the cognizant layer certain mental defenses on the designers side must be slipped thru, discarded, broken or replaced. The evidence that the designer has broken through the consciousness is that less detail rather than more conveys more meaning. They are symbols that have been buried in our heads for longer periods of time and our relative to our culture.
For instance the crystal Icon on the top left does indeed resonate as a symbol for minerals. From a geek culture, I grew crystals at the age of 8 to 10 and almost instinctively I know that crystals usually precipitate from minerals rather than elements. My brain needs no more processing time to make the new association than simple a assignment. I already have the refined minerals in my mind as a sort of set, list or dictionary. minerals =["trit", "pyer", "iso", ...]; crystal_outline = mineral. Fast and direct mental access.
Now I like that transistor, It too I studied in elementary school while growing crystals. It kind of says I'm a crystal too but from elements instead. Its got a direct association too but this time the association is the beginning of a hierarchical collection I would assign the name of crystallized metals or electronic semiconductors and what this actually does is reveal another weakness. The composites pictured are neither electronic or crystallized metallic elements.
The Icons great!!! I think it should be used for what we call moon materials, with the exceptions of the gasses they sound elemental, metallic and potentially capable of semiconductor or superconductor traits.
As the icon currently sits my brain has to go through a series of variable assignments which is cognitive in nature rather than instinctual as icons in a perfect world should be. My brain has to say, transistor image = moon metal: moon metal = intermediate: intermediate = composite. While its carrying this chain I'm also pulling along node indexes for a hierarchical tree of simple and complex reactions. At this point my brain blows a gasket, the transistor has added at least 3 or 4 mental associations to the already more complex t2 thought chain And I don't even need to know this chain without a moon.
Which brings me, since I don't want to not offer a solution when exposing a problem. I would suggest a:
Crescent Moon with 4 beams. The crescent moon is immediately recognizable at a primal level as being a moon. 4 beams signifies its a composite that took Four moon materials to produce. The beams also are a quick association to the glow around the composites icons.
And what is that icon for planetary commodities? It looks like a hedge clipper. Am I supposed to associate hedge clipper with hedges and hedges with vegetation and vegetation with planets and planets with planetary interaction and planetary interaction with planetary commodities before I come to the (Inescapable??? :)) conclusion that hedge clippers = PI stuff?
We have to go back, more primal, more instinctive. Eve's roots are mythology, Greek, Norse, Celtic and probably more along occult lines. A suggestion for planets is a dot representing the sun surrounded by several circles symbolizing orbits with dots along those orbits as planets. By exaggerating the size of the planet orb in comparison to the sun orb its possible that this might say planet rather than solar system. Another symbol, closer to the hedge-clipper but symbolic of Earth more-so than "planets" Is a usually Green circle as a wreathe of leaves or vines and inside that circle a tree branching out to top and bottom and into the "leaves/vine"
I too hope someone takes us back to our mythological roots and symbols instead of Modern Microsoft icon dysfunctions. Eve's history should carry into its future. I'm a PC guy but Apple had Icons right. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5197
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:43:00 -
[755] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec?
Have you seen the number of offline POS in locations that are actually desirable? There aren't many. You know why? Because they got blowed up, is why!
Heck, I've seen corporations lose abandoned hi sec POSes to a single pilot, because that solo pilot had the gumption to wardec the holding corporation (or alliance) and take the risk that someone would shoot back. So you can take your "oh noes, 500 battleship minutes" whining and vamoose!
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Dormio
Shocky Industries Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:56:00 -
[756] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Slappy Andven][quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Xaniff] We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. That would mean that office price on lab stations will skyrocket. One of the main reasons for POS in hisec is availability of labs for copy. Removing slots you will remove that reason, will be the efficency enough reason to keep the POS ?
Confront your enemies Gentleman can walk but never run ! |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:59:00 -
[757] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Zappity wrote:Tippia wrote:Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient? Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec? Have you seen the number of offline POS in locations that are actually desirable? There aren't many. You know why? Because they got blowed up, is why! Heck, I've seen corporations lose abandoned hi sec POSes to a single pilot, because that solo pilot had the gumption to wardec the holding corporation (or alliance) and take the risk that someone would shoot back. So you can take your "oh noes, 500 battleship minutes" whining and vamoose! I said nothing about 500 battleship hours. And I will certainly not vamoose!
There are thousands of the bloody things offline throughout highsec simply because letting them go offline is extremely safe. Why should it be? They are valuable assets and should be at risk if you decide to let the proper protection fail. If they are not fuelled and protected by a shield they should be far more vulnerable than they are.
Honestly, 99% resists on an OFFLINE stick? Please. That is simply a hangover from the days when POS were tied to sov and should be fixed. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
27
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 07:59:00 -
[758] - Quote
Now anyone can enjoy the simplicity and easy of use found in the POS interface, regardless of standings.
That aside, glad to see extra materials go away. long overdue. My indy alt looks forward to these other dev blogs. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20832
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:15:00 -
[759] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec? Yes, with some frequency as I go out and scout potential new locations. It's actually quite easy to find abandoned spots and the only quibble is whether or not you want a high-quality station in the same system or not.
Quote:There are thousands of the bloody things offline throughout highsec simply because letting them go offline is extremely safe. Why should it be? They are valuable assets and should be at risk if you decide to let the proper protection fail. This is already the case. If you don't defend them properly, they get blown up in short order by some wardeccer who wants the spot. That is why I reject outright any kind of suggestion that only amounts to GǣI want it fasterGǥ or GǣI don't want to put the effort inGǥ, which isGǪ ohGǪ pretty much all of them. The wardecs are provably already enough to do the job and laziness or impatience is not a sufficient reason to provide a secondary method.
Right now, if a POS is actually abandoned, the effort required to take it down and replace it is exactly zero. Start it up before you make dinner; by the time the dishes are done, so is the POS.
Destination SkillQueue wrote:It forces a pointless grind on the players for no benefit to any relevant party. It all makes sense, if the parties are actively defending it, since it gives them a chance to protect their assets and creates an opportunity for a fight between the attacker and the defender. An abandoned POS is an admission by neglect, that they have no interest in defending that asset and therefore the attacker is just forced to waste money and time on a grind, that doesn't make the game better, the attacker hates to do and the defender doesn't care about. GǪbut that just leads back to the same old question: how do you determine that it is GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥. The only sensible way to do that is to see whether or not someone is interested in defending it. That means maintaining the wardec mechanic (which is already being used successfully for exactly this purpose) GÇö letting people do 15-minute drive-by:s does not offer that ability to determine anything.
This leads to two main considerations: first, any kind of GÇ£remove abandoned POSesGÇ¥ mechanic must include a mechanism to determine which are genuinely determined and which are not. This means having a significant enough delay to let the defenders mount a defence. Second, such a mechanic cannot be allowed to be faster than wardecs since that just means it will be abused to bypass wardecs against legit targets. With the removal of standings requirements, that abuse would reach epidemic proportions.
If you want to get rid of the HP grind, that's one thing (see the hacking deployable idea linked earlier), but getting rid of the delay simply cannot happen without causing all kinds of issues. 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. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:24:00 -
[760] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪbut that just leads back to the same old question: how do you determine that it is GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥. The only sensible way to do that is to see whether or not someone is interested in defending it. That means maintaining the wardec mechanic (which is already being used successfully for exactly this purpose) GÇö letting people do 15-minute drive-by:s does not offer that ability to determine anything.
This leads to two main considerations: first, any kind of GÇ£remove abandoned POSesGÇ¥ mechanic must include a mechanism to determine which are genuinely determined and which are not. This means having a significant enough delay to let the defenders mount a defence. Second, such a mechanic cannot be allowed to be faster than wardecs since that just means it will be abused to bypass wardecs against legit targets. With the removal of standings requirements, that abuse would reach epidemic proportions.
If you want to get rid of the HP grind, that's one thing (see the hacking deployable idea linked earlier), but getting rid of the delay simply cannot happen without causing all kinds of issues. Why can't offline = abandoned? Why should you be able to lower defensive shields without consequence? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
Oxide Ammar
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:25:00 -
[761] - Quote
if the cost of putting BPO in POS lab for ME/PE/Copy research is more than the 14% tax they applying to stations, I don't see any benefit at all doing this in POS. Losing isk and risking BPOs is not worth it.They need to make it lucrative enough which result bigger profit margin if you researched or manufactured items in POS.
PS. For the love of god remove they huge list of arrays to manufacture ships, ones for T1 and ones for T2 and multiply all this by the sizes of the ships we have !!! |
H3llHound
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
22
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:36:00 -
[762] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:On T2 BPOs, please don't reduce copy times here without a real balancing effect for invention. The status quo is ok but changing copy times would make it worse. Inventors would benefit far more than T2 BPO owners from reduced copy times.
How exactly would Inventors benefit from reduced ->T2 BPO<- copy times?
T1 BPOs I understand but not T2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20832
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 08:37:00 -
[763] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Why can't offline = abandoned? Because there's little to no correlation between the two.
Abandonment isn't just a state GÇö it's an intent, or perhaps more accurately a lack thereof. An offline POS is about as abandoned as a ship in your hangar, and for much the same reasons: just because it is current in a state of non-use does not mean that it is not intended to be used, and there are plenty of reason for not having it in use it every second of every day.
Unless you devise a way to measure that intent (something that wardecs already do), you have no way of determining whether the POS you're eyeing is abandoned or not.
Quote:Why should you be able to lower defensive shields without consequence? You're not. If you do, you become an instant target for wardecs (which, by the way, creates consequences for more than just your POS). 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. |
Pubbie Spy
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:03:00 -
[764] - Quote
Don Aubaris wrote:While there are a few good things in the Blog, this is hardly a better world.
Literally everything in your post is a horrible idea.
Quote:* POS's all over high-sec is good. But the standing should stay. There is only one thing worse then a bad change, and that is a change that disrespects the effort a player made to get somewhere. This doesn't mean it should stay as is. It should be made alot stricter even. If takes x standing to set up a POS in a system with sec-status x then it should stay above x-3 or so or your POS stops working. Living in High-sec should have its cost too.
* God forbid industry become more accessible. Oh no, my standings grind is being disrespected, I am being oppressed! Think of the people offering faction standing boost services! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=8574
Quote:* Unlimited slots in NPC-stations, even with a cost, is silly and goes in the wrong direction. Once again you show a complete lack of vision. With POCO's in highs-sec you pushed players into something that should never happend. Now that you have the chance to push players into something good, you don't do it.
I don't even understand what problem you are trying (unsuccessfully) to describe.
Quote:Players should get 1 slot of every kind in a NPC-station. Just to try it out. They should get 1 (or 2 ) slots of every kind in low-sec (to push people a little bit in that direction). And all the rest should be done in POS's. POS's should have slots that can be rented out to the general public (with a cost, related to the standing of the public ofcourse, and the possibility to block below a certain level) or contracted to a specific player/corps/alliance. Not that this means you should have access to the POS. There should be an (indestructable) POCO-like office outside the shields. A player puts this stuff in...and get this stuff out later. Without the POS owner being able to mess with it. Then you get player-interaction and a good NPC-nerf. This introduces risk for the clients (not the owners since they can safely do all the stuff within the shields) and give pirates a new target. With the POS -defenses jumping in the defense of its customers depending on their status.
Yes, I get it. You really love poses. Everyone must love poses. Everyone must love the most horrible user interface in EVE. Everyone must also spend even more effort on doing the mindlessly boring task of freightering stuff around.
Quote:A corps should only be able to put 1 POS up in high-sec. This to ensure there is enough room for everyone. (and yes..of course they will setup dummy corps). A Non-active POS should be removable after 1 month of inactivity (without a war-dec) and activity must be atleast 1 month before the counter is reset. (otherwise they'll just throw in 1 fuel-block every month)
This would make POS's a lot more attractive in high-sec. That requires another defense-mechanism or the small corps have no chance. A POS must be indestructable in high-sec. If you want a POS in a certain system that is full, you'll just have to offer the owner a price that he will accept. Trade is the motor of Highsec. Not violence.
That doesn't mean POS's should be safe all the time. You cannot conquer them. But you can rob them one the shields are down. Pirates can attack a POS without a war-dec. A POS should have it defenses (just as they do have now). And Concord will intervene eventually. But the delay is a mix of POS-Owner and Pirate influence with CONCORD and the number of attackers. A Pos-owner can have a contract with concord to intervene after x hours. With the price going up the smaller x is. A pirate-group can bribe concord to add a delay to that. So a Pirate must estimate the value of the POS-contents, evaluate the defenses, guess the concord-response time, .... Can they rob it before their time runs out? And will they make a profit?
Ok, so you want highsec to become a WoW like themepark. I will use our renter ISK towards creating alt corps, hoover up all those indestructible highsec poses, and rent out slots at extortionate prices. Then I'll roll up in 256 siege bombers and bash any non goon pos in 20 minutes. More power to the blob, the tears must flow. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
223
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:05:00 -
[765] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Aliventi wrote:Quote:Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes.
That's a plan? Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow.
Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs.
Unless there is a substantial ISK cost for the process of copying T2 BPOs to make them less profitable than investing actual gameplay effort, skills and ISK to invent an item, this is a horrible idea. The only reason why I and many others were indifferent about T2 BPOs even existing in the game several years after the way to obtain them was discontinued was that inventors COULD compete with the owners of T2 BPOs. If this goes through that would not be possible any more.
In fact, while you're at re-hauling industry and removing legacy stuff that is several years old and don't serve the originally intended purpose - then why not consider removing T2 BPOs and compensating the owners in some way? For example, turning T2 BPOs into T2 BPCs with infinite runs. Or introducing a chance of unsuccessful copy like we have in invention.
I really hope you will look into this problem and not just go through with it like it was done when nullsec anomalies were nerfed. That one really backfired on the game and on CCP. This one will as well. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20832
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:12:00 -
[766] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:That's a plan? Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow. Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs. Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything. New players getting into T2 manufacturing will have it just as easy to make a profit as people who are currently doing it GÇö viz. very easy. They will also be helped by the improved mechanics and (hopefully) an improved UI to make their lives even easier. 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. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
385
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:14:00 -
[767] - Quote
Dormio wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Slappy Andven][quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Xaniff] We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. That would mean that office price on lab stations will skyrocket. One of the main reasons for POS in hisec is availability of labs for copy. Removing slots you will remove that reason, will be the efficency enough reason to keep the POS ? Over the short haul, yes. Over the long haul? Probably not.
It will depend on how safe high-sec POSes continue to be. But since the CCP devs seem hell-bent driven to force high-sec players into PVP situations, this will probably drive most of them to use the NPC stations, even with lower efficiency, when POSes come under frequent attack by PVP corps/alliances.
CCP has repeatedly tried, and failed, to entice high-sec players to take more risks and engage in PVP. But, the highest priority of high-sec players has always been "safety" - this is why they stay in high-sec. No reason to expect this player behavior to change.
I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
393
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:22:00 -
[768] - Quote
Dormio wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Slappy Andven][quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Xaniff] We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. That would mean that office price on lab stations will skyrocket. One of the main reasons for POS in hisec is availability of labs for copy. Removing slots you will remove that reason, will be the efficency enough reason to keep the POS ?
This is actually a reason not to rent a corp office. If I cannot use it to store and access my BPs from there for research/invention/manufacturing in the POS, I don't need a corp office to begin with in a 1-man corp. That is a good change, I have to admit, because it potentially saves me millions in ISK. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1472
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:25:00 -
[769] - Quote
Will we be able to select several single run bpc's to run multiple invention/manufacturing jobs at once? +1 |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:27:00 -
[770] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:That's a plan? Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow. Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs. Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything. New players getting into T2 manufacturing will have it just as easy to make a profit as people who are currently doing it GÇö viz. very easy. They will also be helped by the improved mechanics and (hopefully) an improved UI to make their lives even easier.
He said nothing about T2 manufacturing he said new T2 Inventors and to point out the real fault in your statement all T2 Invention should be worthwhile to the new inventor and even more worthwhile to the high skilled inventor. That is what would fall in line with CCPs new approach of having players skill base being highly specialized. |
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
223
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:29:00 -
[771] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:That's a plan? Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow. Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs. Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything.
You can tell that to a player who didn't have contacts with a person who monopolized Nighthawk and Invu field production for years (among many other things). The fact is I know those who own pretty impressive collections of T2 BPOs and I know how they operate.
Yes, it would make easier for a MANUFACTURER to get into T2 production, but at a cost of driving INVENTORS out of the business and out of the game.
T2 BPOs can not be obtained any more - the way to obtain them was removed from the game many years ago. The game now functions on a different mechanics - invention. And all industrial players apart from a lucky (or wealthy) few are playing the game by these currently active rules and mechanics. The investment is several months of gameplay, skill training, planning, organisational efforts, forming corporations and ultimately paying for a subscription in order to master a field like Invention that relies on game mechanics that have been active for several years just to be kicked out of the market by a handful of players that are still milking the mechanics that was discontinued all those years in the past and are not part of the current mechanics whatsoever. That is certainly not a wise business decision.
My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1473
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:44:00 -
[772] - Quote
CCP should reintroduce T2 BPO but instead of a lottery, high skilled inventors should be able to invest a lot of isk to make one. +1 |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1150
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:47:00 -
[773] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:47:00 -
[774] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Zappity wrote:Why can't offline = abandoned? Because there's little to no correlation between the two. Abandonment isn't just a state GÇö it's an intent, or perhaps more accurately a lack thereof. An offline POS is about as abandoned as a ship in your hangar, and for much the same reasons: just because it is current in a state of non-use does not mean that it is not intended to be used, and there are plenty of reason for not having it in use it every second of every day. Unless you devise a way to measure that intent (something that wardecs already do), you have no way of determining whether the POS you're eyeing is abandoned or not. Quote:Why should you be able to lower defensive shields without consequence? You're not. If you do, you become an instant target for wardecs (which, by the way, creates consequences for more than just your POS). I simply do not agree with your opinions on this topic. The fundamental difference between an offline POS and an inactive ship is that the ship is in a station. We are repeatedly told that when you undock you consent to PvP and by this definition those ships are untouchable.
A POS is in space, and if you don't take care of it then it should be at great risk. Taking care of it should include keeping it fueled. Your comment about an offline POS instantly becoming a target for wardecs is patently false. I have had several POS offline for quite a while in highsec without any problem. Were they hackable, or have lower EHP, I doubt they would still be there.
It really boils down to a simple principle: if you're not willing to fight for what you have in EVE you don't deserve it, and you should lose it. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:49:00 -
[775] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:CCP should reintroduce T2 BPO but instead of a lottery, high skilled inventors should be able to invest a lot of isk to make one. Plus one year and you would have an extremely high barrier to entry for new players. And vastly diminished profit margins. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20834
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:52:00 -
[776] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:He said nothing about T2 manufacturing he said new T2 Inventors GǪexcept that the quoted post was talking about new manufacturers, not just inventors. As it happens, new players will still have an easy time no matter which route they take.
Quote:and to point out the real fault in your statement all T2 Invention should be worthwhile GǪwhich doesn't particularly point out any fault with my statement.
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:You can tell that to a player who didn't have contacts with a person who (practically) monopolized Nighthawk and Invu field production for years (among many other things). The fact is I know those who own pretty impressive collections of T2 BPOs and I know how they operate. And the way they operate is that for any item worth inventing, they have no control over the market. They have no ability to drive anyone out of the market for those items GÇö old or new GÇö because they lack the production capacity to do so. Nighthawks is one of those low-volume items that are hardly even worth it with a BPO; invulns is one of those high-volume items where inventors have absolutely no problems making a profit.
Quote:T2 BPOs can not be obtained any more Sure they can. Just buy one. It's a pretty lousy business decision, though, since they're not all that good for large-scale production. 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20834
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:54:00 -
[777] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I simply do not agree with your opinions on this topic. The fundamental difference between an offline POS and an inactive ship is that the ship is in a station. We are repeatedly told that when you undock you consent to PvP and by this definition those ships are untouchable. The point has nothing to do with being touchable or not GÇö it has to do with intent. Again, just because you're not using it does not mean it's GÇ£abandonedGÇ¥.
Quote:A POS is in space, and if you don't take care of it then it should be at great risk. It already is. If you're not willing to fight for your POS, you will lose it. That's the whole point of wardecs, after all. That's also why actual willingness to defend the POS, or lack thereof, is a valid measure of abandonment, whereas just sitting offline is not. One is a state with no meaning; the other is a show of intent. 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. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:57:00 -
[778] - Quote
Hmmmconspiracy theory moment...many people are saying they will simply not use POS anymore...less people using them makes it easier to replace the entire POS mechanics. Could this be a means to an end? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
393
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:04:00 -
[779] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:A POS is in space, and if you don't take care of it then it should be at great risk. It already is. If you're not willing to fight for your POS, you will lose it. That's the whole point of wardecs, after all. That's also why actual willingness to defend the POS, or lack thereof, is a valid measure of abandonment, whereas just sitting offline is not. One is a state with no meaning; the other is a show of intent.
And blocking people's access to moons is no intent? |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:05:00 -
[780] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:A POS is in space, and if you don't take care of it then it should be at great risk. It already is. If you're not willing to fight for your POS, you will lose it. That's the whole point of wardecs, after all. That's also why actual willingness to defend the POS, or lack thereof, is a valid measure of abandonment, whereas just sitting offline is not. One is a state with no meaning; the other is a show of intent. Not true. You have already told us that putting it offline is a valid strategy when the POS is not required. It is a valid strategy because it is SAFE to do so in highsec. You are not defending it all all but rather relying on the mind numbing tedium of a highsec POS takedown to keep you safe.
Can you eject from a ship and leave it floating safely in space? Whether you intend to return for it is irrelevant - it will still be just as stolen when you return.
Make it risky to let a POS run out of fuel. Make it risky when a defensive shield is lowered. If you let your POS run out of fuel I want to be able to pinch it! You have essentially left it unlocked and undefended, regardless of your intent. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
223
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:19:00 -
[781] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:You can tell that to a player who didn't have contacts with a person who (practically) monopolized Nighthawk and Invu field production for years (among many other things). The fact is I know those who own pretty impressive collections of T2 BPOs and I know how they operate. And the way they operate is that for any item worth inventing, they have no control over the market. They have no ability to drive anyone out of the market for those items GÇö old or new GÇö because they lack the production capacity to do so. Nighthawks is one of those low-volume items that are hardly even worth it with a BPO; invulns is one of those high-volume items where inventors have absolutely no problems making a profit. Quote:T2 BPOs can not be obtained any more Sure they can. Just buy one. It's a pretty lousy business decision, though, since they're not all that good for large-scale production.
Heh... the production capacity is not an issue. It haven't been in the past either. But I can see where your assumption comes from. The base of your logic is that a player has a T2 BPO and that the volume is not enough to fill or control the market. But, I'm talking about a single player here with 20+ accounts and dozens of T2 BPOs of the same type. Put several players like that in an entity (like a corporation or alliance) and you'll get market control (yes, those are actual persons and not some hypothetical situation... and no, I'm not naming them). I was there while it was happening and I can assure you that they HAD control over the market in the past and they will have it again if the opportunity like what is going to happen in the summer expansion arrives.
And yeah... good luck obtaining enough T2 BPOs by buying them to even think of competing on the market. And even if you had enough ISK to do that, do you really think that you'd be simply able to go to the Buy Orders section of the forum and just ask for it and be flooded with offers? Market control is not something an individual is willing to sell - for any amount of ISK. Especially if it's centered around a game mechanics that have been removed for years.
Additionally, your argument is still missing the fact that the majority of industrial players play by one rules for years and the handful of players are milking the game mechanics that was discontinued a long time ago). My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2220
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:23:00 -
[782] - Quote
I have never manufactured a single item in Eve Online apart from one something or other in the tutorial back in 2007.
However, I have been thinking about having a stab at manufacturing, so, will the wiki be updated so that I will be able to get to grips with the new shiny manufacturing system? This is not a signature. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:27:00 -
[783] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:all T2 Invention should be worthwhile to the new inventor and even more worthwhile to the high skilled inventor. So you want it to be a press button recieve bacon situation?
That no matter how over-produced a specific T2 item is, it should always be profitable to produce for the new player and even more profitable to produce for the experienced player?
How is that ever going to work in a free market sandbox?
Doesn't that go totally against everything EVE is about?
What you need is for CCP to keep up with the continuous rebalancing effort, so that more and more T2 products become usefull and all T2 prices are set by the inventors. |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
232
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:27:00 -
[784] - Quote
The changes look nice and the pricing of slots could be something awesome, depending on how fast it's going to ramp up.
The one thing I don't like is the Industry mockup;
The material listing is useless, the Icons don't tell you anything unless you can recognize all material and component icons and/or you can browse the market clicking on big icons (that is bad, plz don't do that).
Baddest poster ever |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20837
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:30:00 -
[785] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:And blocking people's access to moons is no intent? It can be. Thus: not abandoned. The point is that you can't tell simply from the state of them sitting in space. As luck would have it, we already have a mechanic to determine such intent and there's no real reason to bypass or obsolete those mechanics.
Zappity wrote:Not true. You have already told us that putting it offline is a valid strategy when the POS is not required. It is a valid strategy because it is SAFE to do so in highsec. GǪwell, apart from the whole Gǣbecomes a target for immediate destructionGǥ bit, sure.
Quote:If you let your POS run out of fuel I want to be able to pinch it! You already can. Just wardec and go to town.
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Heh... the production capacity is not an issue. It haven't been in the past either. But I can see where your assumption comes from. The base of your logic is that a player has a T2 BPO and that the volume is not enough to fill or control the market. But, I'm talking about a single player here with 20+ accounts and dozens of T2 BPOs of the same type. GǪand their production capacity is not nearly enough to push out inventors from the market. They're not assumptions GÇö they're a matter of recorded fact. Again, if it's worth inventing, inventors control the market and there is nothing the BPO holders can do about it any more. Those days are long gone. The summer expansion does not change this in any way.
Quote:Additionally, your argument is still missing the fact that the majority of industrial players play by one rules for years and the handful of players are milking the game mechanics that was discontinued a long time ago). If by GÇ£milkingGÇ¥ you mean GÇ£make far less ISK than if they could produce at high volumeGÇ¥ then yes. It's not a particularly intuitive interpretation of the word, though. No, I'm not missing it. I'm saying that it is pretty much irrelevant on the scale of things GÇö most BPO holders these days still haven't paid off their initial investment, and likely never will unless they can find a seller to take on the debt. 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. |
Amateratsu
The Pegasus Project
63
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:37:00 -
[786] - Quote
I remember talk years ago of allowing Tech II blueprint copies to be ME and PE researched to improve their stats. any chance of this finally happening with this industry overhaul?
this would allow invented bpc's to compete with bpo owners, especially concidering how RARE - Expensive - And difficult Tech II bpos are to aquire. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1000
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:40:00 -
[787] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Zappity wrote:Not true. You have already told us that putting it offline is a valid strategy when the POS is not required. It is a valid strategy because it is SAFE to do so in highsec. GǪwell, apart from the whole Gǣbecomes a target for immediate destructionGǥ bit, sure. Our definitions of 'immediate destruction' are clearly different. Mine does not include 'leaving a POS offline for several months in perfect safety'. Like one of mine has been in The Forge.
The only reason that highsec is littered with literally thousands of offline POS is that it is very safe. Honestly, I am surprised at your defence of such low risk mechanics. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
393
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:42:00 -
[788] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Aeonidis wrote:all T2 Invention should be worthwhile to the new inventor and even more worthwhile to the high skilled inventor. So you want it to be a press button recieve bacon situation? That no matter how over-produced a specific T2 item is, it should always be profitable to produce for the new player and even more profitable to produce for the experienced player? How is that ever going to work in a free market sandbox? Doesn't that go totally against everything EVE is about? What you need is for CCP to keep up with the continuous rebalancing effort, so that more and more T2 products become usefull and all T2 prices are set by the inventors.
Inventors cannot set the prices on all the items. It is impossible for them to undercut BPOs in most cases.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:43:00 -
[789] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Heh... the production capacity is not an issue. It haven't been in the past either. But I can see where your assumption comes from. The base of your logic is that a player has a T2 BPO and that the volume is not enough to fill or control the market. But, I'm talking about a single player here with 20+ accounts and dozens of T2 BPOs of the same type. Put several players like that in an entity (like a corporation or alliance) and you'll get market control (yes, those are actual persons and not some hypothetical situation... and no, I'm not naming them). I was there while it was happening and I can assure you that they HAD control over the market in the past and they will have it again if the opportunity like what is going to happen in the summer expansion arrives. And yeah... good luck obtaining enough T2 BPOs by buying them to even think of competing on the market. And even if you had enough ISK to do that, do you really think that you'd be simply able to go to the Buy Orders section of the forum and just ask for it and be flooded with offers? Market control is not something an individual is willing to sell - for any amount of ISK. Especially if it's centered around a game mechanics that have been removed for years. Additionally, your argument is still missing the fact that the majority of industrial players play by one rules for years and the handful of players are milking the game mechanics that was discontinued a long time ago). These game mechanics where not removed or discontinued. The T2 BPOs are still here and fully functional. Like many areas of EVE we are all given many alternative ways to achieve the same end result and we can each choose which way suits us. Just because this isn't the way you choose to do it does not make the alternatives wrong, evil or unbalanced.
Yes there has been a long history of T2 BPOs dominating various markets at various times and for various reasons. That problem has become less and less with each passing rebalance, as the breadth of demand for T2 products increases. The best solution for whatever remains of that problem is to continue with the rebalancing.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20837
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:44:00 -
[790] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Our definitions of 'immediate destruction' are clearly different. Mine does not include 'leaving a POS offline for several months in perfect safety'. Like one of mine has been in The Forge. Your POS is not in a valuable position. It doesn't take up any space that someone else wants.
Quote:The only reason that highsec is littered with literally thousands of offline POS is that GǪspace isn't nearly as rare as people want to make it out to be. Most of them are in truly horrible locations and there are enough free moons to make it a non-issue.
Quote:Honestly, I am surprised at your defence of such low risk mechanics. I'm surprised at the attempt to reduce the risk and effort of a zero-risk and zero-effort activity for no good reason. 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
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:49:00 -
[791] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Inventors cannot set the prices on all the items. It is impossible for them to undercut BPOs in most cases. That doesn't matter when T2 BPOs cannot meet demand. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
224
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:52:00 -
[792] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Heh... the production capacity is not an issue. It haven't been in the past either. But I can see where your assumption comes from. The base of your logic is that a player has a T2 BPO and that the volume is not enough to fill or control the market. But, I'm talking about a single player here with 20+ accounts and dozens of T2 BPOs of the same type. GǪand their production capacity is not nearly enough to push out inventors from the market. They're not assumptions GÇö they're a matter of recorded fact. Again, if it's worth inventing, inventors control the market and there is nothing the BPO holders can do about it any more. Those days are long gone. The summer expansion does not change this in any way. Quote:Additionally, your argument is still missing the fact that the majority of industrial players play by one rules for years and the handful of players are milking the game mechanics that was discontinued a long time ago). If by GÇ£milkingGÇ¥ you mean GÇ£make far less ISK than if they could produce at high volumeGÇ¥ then yes. It's not a particularly intuitive interpretation of the word, though. No, I'm not missing it. I'm saying that it is pretty much irrelevant on the scale of things GÇö most BPO holders these days still haven't paid off their initial investment, and likely never will unless they can find a seller to take on the debt.
If it was possible in the past to control the market and make things less profitable to inventors by simply manufacturing the items from T2 BPOs, it would clearly not be a problem to do the same if the T2 BPO copying speed gets boosted. You see a chance for cheap T2 BPCs (although that only has a significant potential to ruin the game for the inventors), and I see the potential for expansion of manufacturing capabilities of those who already own neat amounts of T2 BPOs. Increasing copy speeds and making it worthwhile to copy AND manufacture from T2 BPOs will only make market control more easy for those who already had the means to do it in the past.
The BPO holders that you are talking about obtained their BPOs by buying them of the market. Those are low volumes of single BPOs exchanged for insane amounts of ISK between individuals and are not a part of the main T2 BPO pool - those are just peripheral trades by those who thought that they can compete (but they really can't). As I said, those who control what happens with the majority of T2 BPOs and how T2 BPOs are really affecting the game are not willing to go on the market. After all why would they. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
DoToo Foo
Weaponised FuGu
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:54:00 -
[793] - Quote
My simple solution to make moons available and prevent 'camping' by inactive POS.
Modify the criminal activity of shooting an offline POS to a 'suspect' rather than a criminal act.
If you want to make *easy* to take down a highsec POS, remove all criminal activity for shooting offline POS. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:54:00 -
[794] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Aeonidis wrote:all T2 Invention should be worthwhile to the new inventor and even more worthwhile to the high skilled inventor. So you want it to be a press button recieve bacon situation? That no matter how over-produced a specific T2 item is, it should always be profitable to produce for the new player and even more profitable to produce for the experienced player? How is that ever going to work in a free market sandbox? Doesn't that go totally against everything EVE is about? What you need is for CCP to keep up with the continuous rebalancing effort, so that more and more T2 products become usefull and all T2 prices are set by the inventors.
No I dont want an easy button. that is exactly why I stated that T2 BPOs should go away.(they're not called ISK printing machines for nothing)
Like any other item in the game if its over produced then the prices should fall to reflect the oversupply.
yes I agree that T2 products should become useful enough to require players to want to invent them.
I dont agree that T2 prices should be set by the inventors. I think they should be set by the inventors and the component manufacturers. Final product prices on the market should reflect invention costs(datacores, slot pricing/pos fuel, decryptors, profit) and the actual costs to manufacture. They should not however only reflect the cost to pop out a BPC of a T2 BPO and actual costs to manufacture.
Those that invent and or manufacture from their own prints at too high a cost will either lose ISK or sit on their BPC's/T2 products till the market adjusts. At least without any T2 BPO's in the game it will eventually adjust. right now it never does on some items.
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1473
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:55:00 -
[795] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Rek Seven wrote:CCP should reintroduce T2 BPO but instead of a lottery, high skilled inventors should be able to invest a lot of isk to make one. Plus one year and you would have an extremely high barrier to entry for new players. And vastly diminished profit margins.
New players have nothing to do with this. They would not have the skills or isk to invest in manufacturing a T2 BPO but when they eventually do have the isk, they can buy a Manufactured BPO on the market/contract system.
This would create endgame content for industrialist and fix CCPs mistake of adding the unbalanced BPO lottery scheme. +1 |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:56:00 -
[796] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Heh... the production capacity is not an issue. It haven't been in the past either. But I can see where your assumption comes from. The base of your logic is that a player has a T2 BPO and that the volume is not enough to fill or control the market. But, I'm talking about a single player here with 20+ accounts and dozens of T2 BPOs of the same type. Put several players like that in an entity (like a corporation or alliance) and you'll get market control (yes, those are actual persons and not some hypothetical situation... and no, I'm not naming them). I was there while it was happening and I can assure you that they HAD control over the market in the past and they will have it again if the opportunity like what is going to happen in the summer expansion arrives. And yeah... good luck obtaining enough T2 BPOs by buying them to even think of competing on the market. And even if you had enough ISK to do that, do you really think that you'd be simply able to go to the Buy Orders section of the forum and just ask for it and be flooded with offers? Market control is not something an individual is willing to sell - for any amount of ISK. Especially if it's centered around a game mechanics that have been removed for years. Additionally, your argument is still missing the fact that the majority of industrial players play by one rules for years and the handful of players are milking the game mechanics that was discontinued a long time ago). These game mechanics where not removed or discontinued. The T2 BPOs are still here and fully functional. Like many areas of EVE we are all given many alternative ways to achieve the same end result and we can each choose which way suits us. Just because this isn't the way you choose to do it does not make the alternatives wrong, evil or unbalanced. Yes there has been a long history of T2 BPOs dominating various markets at various times and for various reasons. That problem has become less and less with each passing rebalance, as the breadth of demand for T2 products increases. The best solution for whatever remains of that problem is to continue with the rebalancing.
So you can still, without investing tens or hundreds of billions of ISK (disregarding the fact that owners won't sell their profitable stock in the first place) and by using an active game mechanic actually play the game and get the T2 BPO the same way others have done it more than 5 years ago? Great, do you mind pointing out where can I do that? My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
394
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 10:56:00 -
[797] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Inventors cannot set the prices on all the items. It is impossible for them to undercut BPOs in most cases. That doesn't matter when T2 BPOs cannot meet demand.
They can easily meet the demand in many markets. Not Jita, but who cares about Jita when you can make huge profits elsewhere with a lot less effort? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20840
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:00:00 -
[798] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:If it was possible in the past See, here's the thing: we're not in the past any more.
Quote:to control the market and make things less profitable to inventors by simply manufacturing the items from T2 BPOs, it would clearly not be a problem to do the same if the T2 BPO copying speed gets boosted. Yes it will, because the copying speed will not increase their production capacity to any greater degree. I think you might be overestimating what GÇ£less time consuming than manufacturing something out of itGÇ¥ means. It doesn't mean that you can churn out 100 runs worth of BPCs instead of running 10 manufacturing jobs; it will mean that you can churn out 11 or 12 runs rather than directly manufacture 10. It's not going to multiply how many units they can produce many times over GÇö it's going to add maybe one or two per production run. The speed increase is there to make it so you can keep your BPOs safe and use copies rather than direct manufacturing, and slightly compensate for the delays and logistics with carting all those copies over to your manufacturing POS GÇö it's not there to boost the actual manufacturing output.
Quote:I see the potential for expansion of manufacturing capabilities of those who already own neat amounts of T2 BPOs. Increasing copy speeds and making it worthwhile to copy AND manufacture from T2 BPOs will only make market control more easy for those who already had the means to do it in the past. The only thing worth-while is still production. The difference is that you'll be producing from your own copies rather than from the BPO. That is all. That GÇ£increaseGÇ¥ will keep their (complete lack of) market control at exactly the same levels as today. 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. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1467
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:00:00 -
[799] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Inventors cannot set the prices on all the items. It is impossible for them to undercut BPOs in most cases. That doesn't matter when T2 BPOs cannot meet demand. Then allowing more copies in the market will dilute invention profits for that item and become another isk making activity by selling copies for T2 BPO owners. I think the vast majority of players that invest in invention would have a problem with that. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Lady hunter
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:02:00 -
[800] - Quote
Love the industry changes and the stations stuff is really good as is really needed.
But as for the poses not sure it will be worth the risk with plex prices increasing i run an alt corp making copies and selling them only make a 1.1 bil take away office rent, a plex and fuel and now i would have to risk all my blueprints going to sell my toon that's got the decent skills that i dont use just sit around training for the sake of it and put the rest of the account inactive.
But its really good to see them finally working on science and indi. |
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:08:00 -
[801] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:If it was possible in the past See, here's the thing: we're not in the past any more. Quote:to control the market and make things less profitable to inventors by simply manufacturing the items from T2 BPOs, it would clearly not be a problem to do the same if the T2 BPO copying speed gets boosted. Yes it will, because the copying speed will not increase their production capacity to any greater degree. I think you might be overestimating what GÇ£less time consuming than manufacturing something out of itGÇ¥ means. It doesn't mean that you can churn out 100 runs worth of BPCs instead of running 10 manufacturing jobs; it will mean that you can churn out 11 or 12 runs rather than directly manufacture 10. It's not going to multiply how many units they can produce many times over GÇö it's going to add maybe one or two per production run. The speed increase is there to make it so you can keep your BPOs safe and use copies rather than direct manufacturing, and slightly compensate for the delays and logistics with carting all those copies over to your manufacturing POS GÇö it's not there to boost the actual manufacturing output. Quote:I see the potential for expansion of manufacturing capabilities of those who already own neat amounts of T2 BPOs. Increasing copy speeds and making it worthwhile to copy AND manufacture from T2 BPOs will only make market control more easy for those who already had the means to do it in the past. The only thing worth-while is still production. The difference is that you'll be producing from your own copies rather than from the BPO. That is all. That GÇ£increaseGÇ¥ will keep their (complete lack of) market control at exactly the same levels as today.
Add a new account with 3 manufacturers... There: production capacity increased by 33 slots. And since it's faster to copy than to produce now, the only limit of how big you want to go is how much free time you have at your disposal. Currently, the cap is set hard to the amount of T2 BPOs that you own... well, with these changes - not any more. And the best part is - you're hardly investing any ISK or effort while doing it. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20841
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:10:00 -
[802] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Add a new account with 3 manufacturers... There: production capacity increased by 33 slots. GǪwhich won't be able to produce any faster than the BPO already could.
That Invuln II blueprint will go from taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and, what, 500 hours(?) to make a 100-run copy to taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and taking 200 hours to make a 100-run copy GÇö not enough to dominate any markets, but enough to make it worth-while to use the copies in a production POS.
Sure, you could make 10 10-run copies instead and run those 10 copies in parallel. It'll still take 200 hours to do so and while the end product comes out quicker during the production step, you are then idling while the next batch of copies is being researched. The number of runs you can squeeze out of the BPO per time period won't really change.
Quote:Currently, the cap is set hard to the amount of T2 BPOs that you own... well, with these changes GǪthe cap will be pretty much exactly 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. |
Commander Venture
Joint Espionage and Defence Industries Preatoriani
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:12:00 -
[803] - Quote
Lors Dornick wrote:This will be fun.
Thank you CCP (and possibly CSM).
The age of Aquarius is over, this is the age of Vulcan ;)
Actually if I had to name this expansion, it'd be after Vulcanus, smith of the ancient Roman gods. Like industry in EVE, he was the unwanted child that still got the job done, the Tyrion Lannister of the Roman pantheon.
|
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
143
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:18:00 -
[804] - Quote
can we turn off the new interface and use the old one that we all know and love/hate? 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. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:22:00 -
[805] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Add a new account with 3 manufacturers... There: production capacity increased by 33 slots. GǪwhich won't be able to produce any faster than the BPO already could. That Invuln II blueprint will go from taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and, what, 500 hours(?) to make a 100-run copy to taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and taking 200 hours to make a 100-run copy GÇö not enough to dominate any markets, but enough to make it worth-while to use the copies in a production POS. Sure, you could make 10 10-run copies instead and run those 10 copies in parallel. It'll still take 200 hours to do so and while the end product comes out quicker during the production step, you are then idling while the next batch of copies is being researched. The number of runs you can squeeze out of the BPO per time period won't really change. Quote:Currently, the cap is set hard to the amount of T2 BPOs that you own... well, with these changes GǪthe cap will be pretty much exactly the same.
I still see an easy button. The T2 BPO holder [i]always [/i ]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? |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
364
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:22:00 -
[806] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Heh... the production capacity is not an issue. It haven't been in the past either. But I can see where your assumption comes from. The base of your logic is that a player has a T2 BPO and that the volume is not enough to fill or control the market. But, I'm talking about a single player here with 20+ accounts and dozens of T2 BPOs of the same type. Put several players like that in an entity (like a corporation or alliance) and you'll get market control (yes, those are actual persons and not some hypothetical situation... and no, I'm not naming them). I was there while it was happening and I can assure you that they HAD control over the market in the past and they will have it again if the opportunity like what is going to happen in the summer expansion arrives. And yeah... good luck obtaining enough T2 BPOs by buying them to even think of competing on the market. And even if you had enough ISK to do that, do you really think that you'd be simply able to go to the Buy Orders section of the forum and just ask for it and be flooded with offers? Market control is not something an individual is willing to sell - for any amount of ISK. Especially if it's centered around a game mechanics that have been removed for years. Additionally, your argument is still missing the fact that the majority of industrial players play by one rules for years and the handful of players are milking the game mechanics that was discontinued a long time ago). These game mechanics where not removed or discontinued. The T2 BPOs are still here and fully functional. Like many areas of EVE we are all given many alternative ways to achieve the same end result and we can each choose which way suits us. Just because this isn't the way you choose to do it does not make the alternatives wrong, evil or unbalanced. Yes there has been a long history of T2 BPOs dominating various markets at various times and for various reasons. That problem has become less and less with each passing rebalance, as the breadth of demand for T2 products increases. The best solution for whatever remains of that problem is to continue with the rebalancing. So you can still, without investing tens or hundreds of billions of ISK (disregarding the fact that owners won't sell their profitable stock in the first place) and by using an active game mechanic actually play the game and get the T2 BPO the same way others have done it more than 5 years ago? Great, do you mind pointing out where can I do that? Changed and removed are two different things. |
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries Solar Assault Fleet
1062
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:24:00 -
[807] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:
At the moment, almost no t2 ships make any profit from invention
That's strange, I make almost all my profits by inventing, building and selling T2 ships.
The only time that T2 BPO's have any noticeable impact is when the volumes are really low.
As in products that almost no-one wants to buy.
Vote for Fuzzy Steve! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1253
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:25:00 -
[808] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything. New players getting into T2 manufacturing will have it just as easy to make a profit as people who are currently doing it GÇö viz. very easy. They will also be helped by the improved mechanics and (hopefully) an improved UI to make their lives even easier. Actually Tippia that isn't true.
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.
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. Exactly how many lines dependant on that ratio. It will take a bit of time for their copy process to get themselves there, but it will increase the amount of production a T2 BPO holder can make, while also increasing their profit per item. Meaning the market share a T2 BPO can hold will have increased significantly.
As such, it is entirely reasonable to want the T2 BPO situation addressed. There are no good reasons other than grandfathering to maintain T2 BPO's, and Grandfathering in a sandbox game is a terrible thing, because it breaks the sand box by giving an advantage that can't be created by a new player. Sure they can buy one if it's non profitable from someone else, but they can't make their own to compete with someone who is actually utilising it. Meaning when it comes to industry, T2 BPO's actually break the sandbox. |
Adare Darmazaf
Anemos Research
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:25:00 -
[809] - Quote
About the damage changes on R.A.M..
I always try to run jobs so the R.A.M. doesnt get destroyed in the T2 modules production.
I repair and reuse them.
I thought it was much cheaper that way per mod.
This advantage is now gone if I'm correct.????
Anyone care to elaborate on that??? |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
364
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:26:00 -
[810] - Quote
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. |
|
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. |
|
Miktek
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:28:00 -
[841] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:Makoto Priano wrote:Actually, QUESTION!
So. If you're removing the standing requirement for anchoring POSes because it doesn't add gameplay value, will you also be removing the standing requirement for installing jumpclones?
That said, if you're removing standings requirements and standings now only really matter for taxes/agent access, will you be adding new standing-gated rewards to LP stores or something like that? Pretty please? They should probably just remove standings all together. There really is no value for having high standings anymore except for access to high level missions.
perhaps they should remove that limitation as well and just have "missions", no level 1 to 5 anymore :P |
Eurynome Mangeiri
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:30:00 -
[842] - Quote
ST Mahan wrote: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. i think in station it is a sink, in a pos it goes to corp (or maybe 50/50 corp / sink for POS) |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:31:00 -
[843] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Add a new account with 3 manufacturers... There: production capacity increased by 33 slots. GǪwhich won't be able to produce any faster than the BPO already could. That Invuln II blueprint will go from taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and, what, 500 hours(?) to make a 100-run copy to taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and taking 200 hours to make a 100-run copy GÇö not enough to dominate any markets, but enough to make it worth-while to use the copies in a production POS. Sure, you could make 10 10-run copies instead and run those 10 copies in parallel. It'll still take 200 hours to do so and while the end product comes out quicker during the production step, you are then idling while the next batch of copies is being researched. The number of runs you can squeeze out of the BPO per time period won't really change. Quote:Currently, the cap is set hard to the amount of T2 BPOs that you own... well, with these changes GǪthe cap will be pretty much exactly the same. You really don't see how printing blueprints faster than you can use them is an opportunity for expanding you capacity to manufacture if you employ more slots/alts?
And no, you will not have any idle time.
Let's take an example where copying is 10% faster than manufacturing - 9 hours to make a 10 run BPC and 10 hours to produce 10 items from said BPC. Here's a quick time flow: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1404/runs.jpg
You have 10 blueprint copiers? A new manufacturing alt can be spawned at the end of pictured cycle.
That's an example of just 10% difference. With, for example, 20% it's even faster to employ new alts. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20848
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:31:00 -
[844] - Quote
Eurynome Mangeiri wrote:i think in station it is a sink, in a pos it goes to corp (or maybe 50/50 corp / sink for POS) The congestion charge is a sink everywhere, per a previous dev response. 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. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
388
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:32:00 -
[845] - 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.
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???? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:35:00 -
[846] - Quote
Some of the changes look really nice, a big reduction in the click-fest that (T2) manufacturing currently means is always a good thing. After having only gone through the first half dozen pages of this thread i still wonder, how the hassle of always having the right materials/BPs in the right array will be addressed?
For example, when having 20+ labs/arrays on the pos, the ability to remotely install jobs i for naught, since for every few jobs one would have to be physically present in order to move all the crap from one array into the next one.
Would dropping individual storage space on pos modules in favor of a centralized solution be an option for that expansion? Meaning that the storage space of e.g. the corp hangar array gets multiplied by 10 or something like that (math guys to the front) and all "consuming" arrays/labs on the same pos are linked to it and take the materials they need from that central storage. Or maybe keep individual storage and make it possible to link individual consumers to certain storage modules.
And WTB option to stack freaking BPCs... |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:35:00 -
[847] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
That would be a scam not an opportunity cost. If its so easy to sell them for the "cash" opportunity cost how many do you have up for sale atm?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20848
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:36:00 -
[848] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:You really don't see how printing blueprints faster than you can use them is an opportunity for expanding you capacity to manufacture if you employ more slots/alts? Not in a way that in any way affects how little control they have over the market, no. You are still limited by what the BPO can produce, and that limit will still be much the same as it always was.
Quote:And no, you will not have any idle time. You do if you try to speed up the manufacturing by running the copies in parallel.
Quote:You have 10 blueprint copiers? A new manufacturing alt can be spawned at the end of pictured cycle. GǪif you have 10 blueprints. Each blueprint still doesn't produce much more than it did before. 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
368
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:36:00 -
[849] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote: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. There isn't really much point in arguing over what an opportunity cost is or isn't. It's factual. The word means what the word means. You pretending it doesn't has no effect on that. Words don't work that way.
If the T2 BPOs have a value on the open market, which they provably do, then there is an opportunity cost associated with owning them.
Manufacturing from a T2 BPO yields a return on that investment. But that return is small, often less than 1% per month.
It is a trivial task to find a dozen easy ways to generate more than 1% per month on a large amount of isk.
The reason why most people hold T2 BPOs is because their value has tended to increase over time, so they are speculating on future prices. That is the part of the T2 BPO that many cherish and that is exactly the part of the T2 BPO that has no negative effect on invention.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20849
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:37:00 -
[850] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote: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???? Because they're yours and you'll pay lower congestion charges for them than if you join the public pool at the nearby station. 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. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3071
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:40:00 -
[851] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote: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.
T2 BPOs currently sell for around 5-10 years of production profit.
Sure, it's capex without depreciation (possibly even increasing in value), but it's not, currently, a particularly good investment. It's just a low effort one.
The reduction of copy times could be a concern for T2 invention, if the T2 BPO copy times are reduced too far. Right now, you can't produce from a T2 BPO in parallel by using copies. So the volume is gated by the number of blueprints.
The scale of the reduction is the important part. As we don't know this, there's not much of a coherent argument, one way or another. Just time for raising of concerns. Not argument over those concerns.
There's a set demand for T2 goods (yes, it varies a bit. I'm simplifying, but not over-simplifying. Reduction in cost would stimulate demand, but this doesn't mean it would then push costs back up to a viable level). If the T2 BPO supply volume is increased significantly (say, each copy only takes a second. Exaggerated for effect), then invention could be squeezed to the point it's not worth it. (See current low volume markets for what happens when T2 BPOs can fulfil the supply.)
Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
368
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:41:00 -
[852] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:Tippia wrote: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. That would be a scam not an opportunity cost. If its so easy to sell them for the "cash" opportunity cost how many do you have up for sale atm? 1. Open the contracts system. 2. Set Item Category to Blueprint Original. 3. Set "Sort Pages By" to "Price (Highest First)". 4. Buy whichever one you want. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
388
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:41:00 -
[853] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote: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.
Its not more profitable to copy and manufacture by yourself. Either you copy for sale or produce from original.
Copy time as it is currently for t2 bpo is waaay longer than production, so in time it takes you to make enough copies to produce with all yohr slot capabilities you would produ e more one slot at a time Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20849
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:43:00 -
[854] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed. Yup. This has by far a higher problem potential than a simple status-quo-maintaining adjustment to BPO copying speeds. 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. |
Oberine Noriepa
1486
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:44:00 -
[855] - Quote
That UI mock-up is nice! I think the cost scaling is a great idea. An industry update has been needed! Really looking forward to this summer. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:49:00 -
[856] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
That's just a troll, to be honest.
For any other manufacturing activity you can obtain needed materials and tools by playing the game and not using the market whatsoever. T2 BPOs were belonging to that group a long time ago until that feature has been discontinued. You can not under any circumstances obtain T2 BPOs like any other necessary material or tool for any other type of production.
The ONLY exception are NPC SEEDED T1 blueprints that you must buy from the market at a fixed price. They are ALWAYS available to ANYONE who is willing to buy them in an UNLIMITED quantity.
You want T2 blueprints to be the same as any other industry item in the game - then either make them obtainable through gameplay like they were before, which current owners are exploiting (not an "exploit - exploit" in terms of game rule breaking btw) or seed them by NPCs on the market like T1 BPOs are. Until then, yes - they are much different from any other manufacturing activity in the game.
And yes - players that have obtained them by using a discontinued game mechanics HAVE an unfair advantage over all other players simply because of the fact that they are profiting from a game mechanic that is not available to players any more. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
139
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:50:00 -
[857] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed. Exactly this. I just mentioned this a page back and it went unanswered and unnoticed.
This is one of the biggest change as it will have a dramatic affect on the material cost of many invention items. The only reason I can think people wouldn't be discussing this is because the ones who have noticed are busy buying up the T2 items which are going to be massively affected by this. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20850
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:54:00 -
[858] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:And yes - players that have obtained them by using a discontinued game mechanics HAVE an unfair advantage over all other players simply because of the fact that they are profiting from a game mechanic that is not available to players any more. Not really, no. It's just an advantage GÇö one that almost anyone can acquire if they're a bit daft. It is far from an unfair one. 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
368
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:55:00 -
[859] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:And yes - players that have obtained them by using a discontinued game mechanics HAVE an unfair advantage over all other players simply because of the fact that they are profiting from a game mechanic that is not available to players any more. The mechanic I used to get my T2 BPOs is available to everyone, right now. Even to someone like you.
I even gave you clear, step by step instructions.
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:57:00 -
[860] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:And yes - players that have obtained them by using a discontinued game mechanics HAVE an unfair advantage over all other players simply because of the fact that they are profiting from a game mechanic that is not available to players any more. Not really, no. It's just an advantage GÇö one that almost anyone can acquire if they're a bit daft. It is far from an unfair one.
Until there is a possibility to obtain T2 BPOs like there was before, the unfair advantage will always be there. You can play with words and semantics, but this fact remains. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
|
Gynax Gallenor
Conquering Darkness
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:03:00 -
[861] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed.
I think you got your arithmetic slightly wrong there Steve.
ME -4 gives 50% waste, not 100%, so it doesn't double the materials required.
To use your specific requirement, you would then need 1.5 of the T1 item, which gets rounded to 1 doesn't it? (I have it in my head that decimals are always rounded down, but I could be wrong about that)
Best of luck with the CSM vote BTW.
Fly Reckless, cos flying safe is no damn fun!
http://flyreckless.com/newsite/ |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:04:00 -
[862] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed. Exactly this. I just mentioned this a page back and it went unanswered and unnoticed. This is one of the biggest change as it will have a dramatic affect on the material cost of many invention items. The only reason I can think people wouldn't be discussing this is because the ones who have noticed are busy buying up the T2 items which are going to be massively affected by this. ME -4 which is the standard T2 BPC you get from an invention job will be unviable in the new system for many T2 items as it will double the extra material requirement. In the end it would balance out if supply from T2 BPOs remains constant. Although it means that T2 items in general will increase in price. And T2 BPO holders will be able to make more profit by manufacturing from them. This could entice more T2 BPO holders to start using them for manufacturing though instead of just as an investment.
Although this should have been addressed the second CCP decided to push extra materials up I would not put it past them to have not considered it. If they intend to do that they might as well just remove invention from the game as it will no longer be viable gameplay. btw I noticed your previous post and liked it as well. From what I can tell this game has gotten so convoluted over the years that, now, when the Devs are set to push a major expansion such as this they release the blogs first so that we as players can help them cover all the little things they missed. This was a good catch on your part, bravo. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20851
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:05:00 -
[863] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Until there is a possibility to obtain T2 BPOs like there was before, the unfair advantage will always be there. You can play with words and semantics, but this fact remains. The fact is that it's not unfair. It is available to anyone who wants to (stupidly) throw their money at such a low-ROI investment.
Moreover, any advantage BPOs offer can be countered by the many advantages invention offer. Like Akita T said, it offers an advantage, but that does not mean that the advantage is insurmountable or unfair. The fact is that among the many advantages available to industrialists, it's a pretty bad one to have on the scale of things. 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. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3072
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:10:00 -
[864] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Until there is a possibility to obtain T2 BPOs like there was before, the unfair advantage will always be there. You can play with words and semantics, but this fact remains. The fact is that it's not unfair. It is available to anyone who wants to (stupidly) throw their money at such a low-ROI investment. Moreover, any advantage BPOs offer can be countered by the many advantages invention offer. Like Akita T said, it offers an advantage, but that does not mean that the advantage is insurmountable or unfair or in any way out of whack with what other advantages you can buy yourself. The fact is that among the many advantages available to industrialists, it's a pretty bad one to have on the scale of things.
The only thing I'd add here is 'currently low-ROI'
Depending the actual number changes, this may change. Not worth getting worked up about yet, however
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
140
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:11:00 -
[865] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Gynax Gallenor wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.
I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed. I think you got your arithmetic slightly wrong there Steve. ME -4 gives 50% waste, not 100%, so it doesn't double the materials required. To use your specific requirement, you would then need 1.5 of the T1 item, which gets rounded to 1 doesn't it? (I have it in my head that decimals are always rounded down, but I could be wrong about that) Best of luck with the CSM vote BTW. bah. yes. 50%. But iirc, that rounds up. (I'm seeing other things rounding it up. It's possible this is an artefact of my calculator. I'll have to double check it in game. Expanded CargoHold II's are showing 2 Nocx in their base materials at ME -4) Extra materials and ME could be very significant with T2. I'm pretty sure that it is rounded up at 0.5. Unless CCP are using funny maths. At least that's what I have been using in all my spreadsheets and it hasn't failed me yet. |
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
27
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:11:00 -
[866] - Quote
One great advantage that T2 BPO have is that producing with them is much, much less click-intensive than invention. I think it adds to their value. With invention/manufacturing clickfest reduced plus batch job submission in summer expansion, T2 BPOs might lose some of their value. Just a wild guess of course... |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:12:00 -
[867] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Until there is a possibility to obtain T2 BPOs like there was before, the unfair advantage will always be there. You can play with words and semantics, but this fact remains. The fact is that it's not unfair. It is available to anyone who wants to (stupidly) throw their money at such a low-ROI investment. Moreover, any advantage BPOs offer can be countered by the many advantages invention offer. Like Akita T said, it offers an advantage, but that does not mean that the advantage is insurmountable or unfair or in any way out of whack with what other advantages you can buy yourself. The fact is that among the many advantages available to industrialists, it's a pretty bad one to have on the scale of things.
Have a look at the post above your. I have only covered one aspect of making inventions unprofitable. There are other things mentioned in this dev blog that will further affect the viability of invention.
And all those issues and game breaking changes for many regular industrial characters are happening because of a legacy support of a discontinued part of the gameplay that haven't been available to players for more than five years. That's truly an "excellent" way of balancing the game. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5356
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:12:00 -
[868] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: CCP has repeatedly tried, and failed, to entice high-sec players to take more risks and engage in PVP. But, the highest priority of high-sec players has always been "safety" - this is why they stay in high-sec. No reason to expect this player behavior to change.
I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread.
Sadly you are quite right and these players will be the first to flock over SC once it's out. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tarikla
Projet Aurora
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:14:00 -
[869] - Quote
Tarikla wrote:I have ONE major grip about all this : 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).
This change is killing the whole point of faction standings. The system was already not really great, for standings that takes weeks or even months of farming missions, all you had was the privilege of anchoring POS in High-Sec, and the 1 time BPC with very high standings. There is an whole economy revolving around standing boosts and selling of corps with high standings. And you are throwing that out of the window completly. It wasn't hard to find someone with high standings to get you a corp or a boost, with a fee of course. But now, you can anchor POS all the way up to 1.0 with no effort and an almost blank alt in a corp. What's the point of faction standings then ? Only some BPC, and the usual "if you go below -5 navy chase you" & "can't go higher than l1 mish if below -2" ? Both those things are easily avoided with the Diplomacy skill if you want. So basically, doing storyline missions, who requires an lenghty amount of time to get, only means that you gonna get a small goodie at the end. by the time you reach a BPC, you will certainly got *100 or even more it's value in regular missions. I don't see any reasons now to do Storyline missions. Factions Standings are utterly useless right now, just for the sake of banalizing POS Usage. The already poor PVE side of Eve got dumbed down a little more.
If possible, i would like a stance from CCP for this. Is it ok with you to kill this part of the game ? I will accept the decision, i'm just bringing it to the table. |
Miktek
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:15:00 -
[870] - Quote
At the moment I use my own BPOs that I copy in my corps POS, I drag the BPOs to a corp hanger in a station, set the copy jobs and collect from the POS. will this still be a valid method of copying or will I now have to physically take the BPOs to the POS in order to start the copy jobs? |
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:16:00 -
[871] - Quote
Miktek wrote:At the moment I use my own BPOs that I copy in my corps POS, I drag the BPOs to a corp hanger in a station, set the copy jobs and collect from the POS. will this still be a valid method of copying or will I now have to physically take the BPOs to the POS in order to start the copy jobs? You will have to take the BPO to the POS in order to copy it.
Quote from devblog: Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
296
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:20:00 -
[872] - 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. Hrmmm Time for a new Speculation Small POS with one of each Lab type on it, overloaded, for a small corp might be more cost effective due to fuel costs than a Large POS with lots of Labs on it with the same number of Jobs being pumped through it? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20851
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:22:00 -
[873] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Have a look at the post above your. I have only covered one aspect of making inventions unprofitable with summer changes. GǪexcept, of course, that what you have covered doesn't really affect invention at all. The only thing that might hit invention is the extra materials change, and we haven't seen the actual numbers for that yet.
Quote:Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more. It still exists, though, and in many forms so of course they should support it. If they should happen to fix other mechanics at the same time, then it's a definite bonus.
Miktek wrote:At the moment I use my own BPOs that I copy in my corps POS, I drag the BPOs to a corp hanger in a station, set the copy jobs and collect from the POS. will this still be a valid method of copying or will I now have to physically take the BPOs to the POS in order to start the copy jobs? If the station you're in does not have copy services, you'll have to move the BPO. So a suggestion would be to make sure your BPOs are in a station with copying services. 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. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:25:00 -
[874] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more. It still exists, though, and in many forms so of course they should support it. If they should happen to fix other mechanics at the same time, then it's a definite bonus.
The ability to obtain a T2 BPO in a lottery certainly does not exist any more and I know you know that as well.
My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
369
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:28:00 -
[875] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more. It still exists, though, and in many forms so of course they should support it. If they should happen to fix other mechanics at the same time, then it's a definite bonus. The ability to obtain a T2 BPO in a lottery certainly does not exist any more and I know you know that as well. I can start a lottery for one of my T2 BPOs if that would make you feel better. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20851
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:30:00 -
[876] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:The ability to obtain a T2 BPO in a lottery certainly does not exist any more and I know you know that as well. Ok, but if that's what you're referring to, they're also not damaging anything to support it for the simple reason that they're not supporting it any more GÇö it's no longer there; there is nothing to support. 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. |
Destiven Mare
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:30:00 -
[877] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: Need more blogs. Any real discussion on this isn't possible until we have the whole picture.
^^ THIS. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2673
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:31:00 -
[878] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: CCP has repeatedly tried, and failed, to entice high-sec players to take more risks and engage in PVP. But, the highest priority of high-sec players has always been "safety" - this is why they stay in high-sec. No reason to expect this player behavior to change.
I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread.
Sadly you are quite right and these players will be the first to flock over SC once it's out.
And yet, the CSM and their lackey blithely move along making changes that hurt that demographic the most, acting with arrogance, ignorance, or both. CCP must want that type of player gone from their game, because their actions constantly demonstrate that. For their sake, they better pray that they have not underestimated the size of that demographic.
I ran across a miner in low sec a few days ago (and of course, I did not shoot him. He needed help with some rats and I went on my way), a Jan 2014 char in what appeared to be a new mining / indy corp. He did not know what a POS was. Yesterday, I sent him a link to the Eve UNI Wiki on a POS. I told him that there were definite benefits and of course drawbacks with setting up a POS.
That was hours before I read the dev blog.
I will be emailing him today strongly suggesting that his group should stay as far from a POS as they can, because most of the benefits have been wiped out, such as a controllable cost of simply fuel costs on a POS. There is now some idiotic variable cost for using your own mfg slots. In fact, anyone getting into industry is in for some real pain.
I imagine this fellow will be the precise target market of SC. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:32:00 -
[879] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more. It still exists, though, and in many forms so of course they should support it. If they should happen to fix other mechanics at the same time, then it's a definite bonus. The ability to obtain a T2 BPO in a lottery certainly does not exist any more and I know you know that as well. I can start a lottery for one of my T2 BPOs if that would make you feel better.
Likewise, I know that you know as well what kind of lottery I was talking about. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:33:00 -
[880] - Quote
now the thread has devolved into a pure troll fest, as all meaningful conversation about the current topic at hand seems to have been exhausted I bid you farewell. |
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:34:00 -
[881] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:The ability to obtain a T2 BPO in a lottery certainly does not exist any more and I know you know that as well. Ok, but if that's what you're referring to, they're also not damaging anything to support it for the simple reason that they're not supporting it any more GÇö it's no longer there; there is nothing to support. The mechanics is not there... the items that were produced by the mechanics that is not there any more are still there. So, yes... they are supporting a byproduct from a discontinued game mechanics. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20851
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:36:00 -
[882] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:And yet, the CSM and their lackey blithely move along making changes that hurt that demographic the most, acting with arrogance, ignorance, or both. How are these changing in any way hurting highsec players the most?
Quote: CCP must want that type of player gone from their game, because their actions constantly demonstrate that. Yes, by constantly making their lives easier and safer, they demonstrate that they want them goneGǪ wait what?
Quote:I will be emailing him today strongly suggesting that his group should stay as far from a POS as they can, because most of the benefits have been wiped out, such as a controllable cost of simply fuel costs on a POS. There is now some idiotic variable cost for using your own mfg slots. GǪwhich can be controlled, so that along with all the other benefits remain. Hell, it even looks like they're gaining some new ones with these changes. So I can only surmise that you're making that suggestion to cut out the competition. 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20851
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:38:00 -
[883] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:The mechanics is not there... the items that were produced by the mechanics that is not there any more are still there. So, yes... they are supporting a byproduct from a discontinued game mechanics. GǪand they items work the same as any other blueprint, so there is nothing outdated that is given special support at the cost of something else.
I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways here: either they mechanics are supported and still around, or discontinued and thereby no longer supported. There is no middle ground; there is no mix; there is only one or the other. 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. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5358
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:41:00 -
[884] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote: 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.
You have just described 80% of the humanity approach to any matter!!
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:45:00 -
[885] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:The mechanics is not there... the items that were produced by the mechanics that is not there any more are still there. So, yes... they are supporting a byproduct from a discontinued game mechanics. GǪand they items work the same as any other blueprint, so there is nothing outdated that is given special support at the cost of something else.
Do they use same ME levels as default invention - no. Do you have a chance based mechanic to get the copy - no. Can you obtain them through gameplay - no. If you can not obtain them through gameplay, are they seeded by NPCs on the market - no.
That does not look the same to me.
Quote:I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways here: either they mechanics are supported and still around, or discontinued and thereby no longer supported. There is no middle ground; there is no mix; there is only one or the other.
Exactly what I'm saying. We are in the limbo of the middle ground right now. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20851
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:48:00 -
[886] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Do they use same ME levels as default invention other BPOs - yes. Do you have a chance based mechanic to get the copy - no, same as other BPOs. Can you obtain them through gameplay - no, same as other BPOs. If you can not obtain them through gameplay, are they seeded by NPCs on the market - no, but they are still available on the market if you want to buy one. Looks very similar to me.
The biggest difference is that they're a horrible investment, unlike most other BPOs. 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. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5358
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:48:00 -
[887] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: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.
The addition of wardec-able additional targets over time is to bring in some life to the zombie-land called hi-sec. It will probably fail because the mindset of the affected players is to play victim not to adapt & overcome. But at least CCP can say they have tried.
The addition of ISK sinks is also extremely positive. On one side it's born to combat the current rampant ISK over-production and on the other side it's the ONLY way CCP can avoid negative repercussions on PLEXes sales. In fact the PLEX rise is not neutral to CCP, they need to fit PLEX prices within a "comfort zone" where they are seen as good ISK value but not an impossible objective to reach for those who want to buy them to extend their playtime. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Kaius Fero
24
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:49:00 -
[888] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: CCP has repeatedly tried, and failed, to entice high-sec players to take more risks and engage in PVP. But, the highest priority of high-sec players has always been "safety" - this is why they stay in high-sec. No reason to expect this player behavior to change.
I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread.
Sadly you are quite right and these players will be the first to flock over SC once it's out. Also is the main reason why we keep throwing money at SC at an insane rate, the beauty of industry and science in EVE is already vanished.. EVE now is more about being the biggest badass and villan including the excesive ussage of mayo. Not to mention the fact that for being competitive you have to take EVE as a secondary job, not a game. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20851
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:53:00 -
[889] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Also is the main reason why we keep throwing money at SC at an insane rate, the beauty of industry and science in EVE is already vanished.. EVE now is more about being the biggest badass and villan including the excesive ussage of mayo. Not to mention the fact that for being competitive you have to take EVE as a secondary job, not a game. Huh. Funny thatGǪ and here I was being competitive in the T2 ship manufacturing market and hadn't touched the S&I interface in nearly a week. I must be doing something wrong since it doesn't seem to qualify as a second jobGǪ 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. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
227
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:53:00 -
[890] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Do they use same ME levels as default invention other BPOs - yes. Do you have a chance based mechanic to get the copy - no, same as other BPOs. Can you obtain them through gameplay - no, same as other BPOs. If you can not obtain them through gameplay, are they seeded by NPCs on the market - no, but they are still available on the market if you want to buy one. Looks very similar to me.
T2 BPOs do not have the -4/-4 level of T2 BPCs and you know that I was referring to it. T2 BPOs can be copied with 100% success rate, unlike inventing a T2 BPC to get a T2 copy. T2 BPOs are not available on the NPC market, with a fixed price that serves as a ISK sink, available in unlimited quantities and at all times like T1 BPOs are.
My signature got stolen (o.0) |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5358
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:53:00 -
[891] - Quote
Dast Aldurald wrote:ok, all this is interesting but: 1) no standing needed for pos? really
I have a suggestion that would let CCP reward those who (like me too) grinded standings or have standings-raise professions and so on:
Have the new POS slots fees depend (in a minor way) also from standings.
So, everyone can put up a POS but those with standings get a discount.
Voil+á, two birds with one stone!
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6964
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:56:00 -
[892] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: CCP has repeatedly tried, and failed, to entice high-sec players to take more risks and engage in PVP. But, the highest priority of high-sec players has always been "safety" - this is why they stay in high-sec. No reason to expect this player behavior to change.
I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread.
Sadly you are quite right and these players will be the first to flock over SC once it's out. boy ccp better get its act together in the next decade Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Otin Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:58:00 -
[893] - Quote
removed ... I need to wait for the next few blogs |
Perkin Warbeck
Black Watch Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:58:00 -
[894] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:I will be emailing him today strongly suggesting that his group should stay as far from a POS as they can, because most of the benefits have been wiped out, such as a controllable cost of simply fuel costs on a POS. There is now some idiotic variable cost for using your own mfg slots. GǪwhich can be controlled, so that along with all the other benefits remain. Hell, it even looks like they're gaining some new ones with these changes. So I can only surmise that you're making that suggestion to cut out the competition.
I will wait for further blogs but I'm actually with DInsdale on this one [quietly stabs himself in eye].
Unless you have some serious firepower then queuing up a job that lasts more than 24 hours (the time it takes a war dec to come into effect) presents a bit of a risk in low sec. Even if you get the notification of the war dec in time to take your POS down you will have to abandon the job to get your BPO out with a consequential loss of minerals as a result. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20854
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:59:00 -
[895] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:T2 BPOs do not have the -4/-4 level of T2 BPCs and you know that I was referring to it. Yes, you were referring to something unrelated. They are like any other BPO GÇö you know those things that also don't have -4/-4?
Quote:T2 BPOs are copied with 100% success rate GǪjust like any other BPO.
Quote:T2 BPOs are not available on the NPC market GǪbut are still available on the same market as the other BPOs if you want to buy one (but why you'd want to considering the poor returns is anyone's guess).
They are like any other blueprint so there is nothing outdated that is given special support at the cost of something else. You can do apples-to-oranges comparisons all day, but that doesn't change what BPOs are: BPOs. You might as well say that T2 BPCs are outdated because they are nothing like moon goo. 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. |
Maru Sha
The Department of Justice
35
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:00:00 -
[896] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium 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.
It was already mentioned that R.A.M. (and R.db) needs a volume reduction to compensate for the higher amount needed for the same item. In that context I would like to point out that some production arrays for POS (if not all) need capacity increase since you are not able to install long running jobs because not all the products will fit in the array (in addition to the fact that part of the capacity can be claimed by items in other sections of the hangar on has no access to and the total available capacity is reduced). The increase of capacity could be modular and depend on player choice (or a skill thingy), not necessarily a "hard" change in the database of EVE software.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Stopping the damage ...
Could you also have a look at the "waste" factor of t2 blueprints. It doesn't make sense to me and seems totally random.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Alright, here it is; for summer we are removing all industry slots. We can hear you from here: GÇ£Wait wait, you silly Frenchman, what do you mean removing all industry slots?GÇ¥
I can understand your intention behind removing industry slots, though I would like to point out from from a point of realism it makes perfect sense to have a fixed and limited number of factory slots in a station like it make perfect sense to have a limited number of offices available. I hoped there would be a different solution to the "select a slot for your industry job"-problem.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: (A) Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. (B) Improve Mobile Laboratories and Assembly Arrays to compensate for such risk GÇô weGÇÖll give you final numbers as soon as we have them. (C) Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.
I expect that a considerable amount of production lines will be relocated to stations because of (A) and the risk involved losing all in a moment of absence. So you introduce the means of reward for the increased risk (B). Furthermore you introduce the option to increase output by using copies (C). To me it sounds like it will be mandatory (for certain industries) to produce from copies instead of originals because it will reduce cost and increase output. Is that what you really want? With regards to blueprint copies I would suggest you adjust the production time from copies and make it equal (nut not faster) in comparison to originals. Furthermore, from a realism point of view it doesn't make sense that producing copies of blueprints take more than 1(?) minute. I would overhaul the whole concept of blueprint copies but I admit that is only loosely related to the current dev blog.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: So player corporations will now have the choice between the safety of NPC stations or the efficiency of Starbases to operate. The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked or be reactive enough to take the blueprints out before they go into reinforced mode.
I think every player is motivated to defend the own POS (or outpost) since it is closest what you can call your home and I doubt any further incentive is needed. But you have to be aware that such fights are rarely fair fights. If a medium sized corporation suspect assets and blueprints in a POS worth more than 1 billion (?) isk or know about it from spying, they could just declare war on the usually small sized corporation. After a 24h war declaration delay they will put the POS into reinforced mode and then destroy it. A casual player logging in after a few days or a small corp going on holiday will return to game and find nothing. To me it does not sound like value added to the game. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5360
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:00:00 -
[897] - Quote
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? 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.
Do you understand you are talking about a commodity (ices but also other fuels components) that has ZERO intrinsic ISK value and whose price is exclusively - and rightly - decided by the mrakets?
The markets will judge the best price, no you, not me nor CCP.
That's what sets EvE apart. The markets. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Kaius Fero
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:00:00 -
[898] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:Also is the main reason why we keep throwing money at SC at an insane rate, the beauty of industry and science in EVE is already vanished.. EVE now is more about being the biggest badass and villan including the excesive ussage of mayo. Not to mention the fact that for being competitive you have to take EVE as a secondary job, not a game. Huh. Funny thatGǪ and here I was being competitive in the T2 ship manufacturing market and hadn't touched the S&I interface in nearly a week. I must be doing something wrong since it doesn't seem to qualify as a second jobGǪ Yet.. you still have time to post on forums all day long. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
390
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:01:00 -
[899] - Quote
Hint: Star Citizen is a scam. They are walking away with your money.
This T2 BPO talk is all nonsense. They need to be removed, period. Sure, a few people will quit over it. They will not be missed. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6964
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:02:00 -
[900] - Quote
you're all idiots if you think that the pos congestion fees are going to be anything but zero until you do something like try to stuff an alliance's worth of battleship production into a small pos with a single assembly array
wait to start wigging the **** out until you see the cost devblog Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5360
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:04:00 -
[901] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote: Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more.
It exists, some markets are dominated at 80% by it!
In this case you have two choices:
- adapt, overcome and put it into your advantage. Many ways to do that including the *gasp* prospect of buying a T2 BPO yourself like thousands have done before you (Notice: I have no T2 BPO).
- play victim or let yourself be smashed by the winds of change.
Your turn to decide, now. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20854
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:04:00 -
[902] - Quote
Perkin Warbeck wrote:I will wait for further blogs but I'm actually with DInsdale on this one [quietly stabs himself in eye].
Unless you have some serious firepower then queuing up a job that lasts more than 24 hours (the time it takes a war dec to come into effect) presents a bit of a risk in low sec. Even if you get the notification of the war dec in time to take your POS down you will have to abandon the job to get your BPO out with a consequential loss of minerals as a result. Then keep using station services.
Right now, POS manufacturing is all kinds of stupid unless the POS (or, more accurately, some special assembly array) is required in the process; after the patch, it actually has a purpose. So that is no reason to suddenly abandon everything POS related that you planned on doing before the changes were announced. If you thought it worth-while doing before, it'll be worth-while doing afterwards as well.
Kaius Fero wrote:Yet.. you still have time to post on forums all day long. Just further proof that staying competitive is not a second job. 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2303
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:07:00 -
[903] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Do they use same ME levels as default invention other BPOs - yes. Do you have a chance based mechanic to get the copy - no, same as other BPOs. Can you obtain them through gameplay - no, same as other BPOs. If you can not obtain them through gameplay, are they seeded by NPCs on the market - no, but they are still available on the market if you want to buy one. Looks very similar to me. T2 BPOs do not have the -4/-4 level of T2 BPCs and you know that I was referring to it. T2 BPOs are copied with 100% success rate, unlike inventing a T2 BPC to get a T2 copy. T2 BPOs are not available on the NPC market, with a fixed price that serves as a ISK sink, available in unlimited quantities and at all times like T1 BPOs are. You are overrating T2 BPOs way too much. There is a T2 Large Armor repairer BPO for sale right now, asking 40b. A T2 LAR sells for 1.3m. With that in mind assuming 0 waste and assuming all isk is profit it would take about 30770 units to make 40b ad 30770 units would take 8 years to make. -á --á |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:07:00 -
[904] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Do they use same ME levels as default invention other BPOs - yes. Do you have a chance based mechanic to get the copy - no, same as other BPOs. Can you obtain them through gameplay - no, same as other BPOs. If you can not obtain them through gameplay, are they seeded by NPCs on the market - no, but they are still available on the market if you want to buy one. Looks very similar to me. The biggest difference is that they're a horrible investment, unlike most other BPOs.
So the real question that everyone is wondering, how many BPO's do you have?
I really only see two camps in this post those who control the market with a granfathered mechanic that should have been removed ages ago. And those that invent as part of CCP's bandied fix to to make sure PVP prices stay relatively constant.
No where else in eve did CCP allow a mechanic to be totally changed but leave the old mechanic in place and i think that this "rebalancing" is a perfect time to finally do away with them. The profits T2 BPO owners make overtop of anyone inventing is already enormous, not even including the amount of extra time and money we have to sink to make these T2 BPC's. The talk of buying a BPO is also silly, I sold some during the years of the lottery they were expensive but reasonable back then. Now it would take at least 5 years of running that BPO 24/7 to start seeing green on your investment.
TLDR:
Remove T2 BPO's there is already a system in the game for replacing them. They're a sunk cost and should of been long ago. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5586
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:07:00 -
[905] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Do they use same ME levels as default invention other BPOs - yes. Do you have a chance based mechanic to get the copy - no, same as other BPOs. Can you obtain them through gameplay - no, same as other BPOs. If you can not obtain them through gameplay, are they seeded by NPCs on the market - no, but they are still available on the market if you want to buy one. Looks very similar to me. T2 BPOs do not have the -4/-4 level of T2 BPCs and you know that I was referring to it. T2 BPOs are copied with 100% success rate, unlike inventing a T2 BPC to get a T2 copy. T2 BPOs are not available on the NPC market, with a fixed price that serves as a ISK sink, available in unlimited quantities and at all times like T1 BPOs are.
1) Correct, they are the same as every other BPO in the game however.
2) They also have the slowest copy rate (by far) of any BPO in the game.
3) T2 BPO's are, however, bought and sold all the time between players and help drive the EVE economy.
Currently T2 BPO's are simply another BPO, and confer no huge advantage to the owner due to slow production rates and inability to make copies to sell in anything close to a timely fashion.
I'll also remind you that originally T2 BPO acquisition was indeed tied to a game mechanic (research agents), and was chance based with player decisions/actions affecting the chance of success/acquisition (JUST AS INVENTION JOBS ARE CURRENTLY). 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. |
Juwi Kotch
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
81
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:10:00 -
[906] - Quote
My cap ship and cap ship component BPCs just became a whole lot more precious. I'll bunker them till after the summer expansion. "Our lives are not our own. We are bound to others, past and present. And by each crime, and every kindness, we birth our future." Sonmi-451 |
Perkin Warbeck
Black Watch Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:11:00 -
[907] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Perkin Warbeck wrote:I will wait for further blogs but I'm actually with DInsdale on this one [quietly stabs himself in eye].
Unless you have some serious firepower then queuing up a job that lasts more than 24 hours (the time it takes a war dec to come into effect) presents a bit of a risk in low sec. Even if you get the notification of the war dec in time to take your POS down you will have to abandon the job to get your BPO out with a consequential loss of minerals as a result. Then keep using station services. Right now, POS-based manufacturing is all kinds of stupid unless the POS (or, more accurately, some special assembly array) is required in the process; after the patch, it actually has a purpose (and some of the stupidity might even be removed depending on how some of the future devblogs turn out). So that is no reason to suddenly abandon everything POS related that you planned on doing before the changes were announced. If you thought it worth-while doing before, it'll be worth-while doing afterwards as well. Kaius Fero wrote:Yet.. you still have time to post on forums all day long. Just further proof that staying competitive is not a second job.
Just reread my post and was actually baffled by my own lack of logic. The risk I mention is there now and the new changes don't actually affect that at all.
Sorry Dinsdale you are on your own. It's late in Australia. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20855
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:14:00 -
[908] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippa the issue was never about market share, the volume of the market doesn't matter to a single seller. What matters to the single seller is MARGIN. GǪand the changes in T2 BPO copying speed won't affect that margin. You're still competing against other inventors since invention is still what will set the market price.
Quote:T2 BPO have margin advantages that no one else has in game. IF seller A can produce item 1 for 250k and seller B can produce 1 item for 150k he can sell out of his entire stock below the production cost of Seller A and STILL be profitable. That's the problem here. It's only a problem if it leaves Seller A without customers. The thing about the BPO portion of production is that it doesn't have the volume to do so, so A still sells his goods at a useful margin. Seller B would also be pretty stupid to undercut A that much since that just means he earns far less than he otherwise could.
Halia Thorak wrote:So the real question that everyone is wondering, how many BPO's do you have? Zero, because they're a waste of money and offer me no useful advantage over the invention I do. 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. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
296
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:17:00 -
[909] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:you're all idiots if you think that the pos congestion fees are going to be anything but zero until you do something like try to stuff an alliance's worth of battleship production into a small pos with a single assembly array
wait to start wigging the **** out until you see the cost devblog I just think that the sliding scale of number of jobs trying to be Put through vs the number of labs/arrays on the tower vs the Fuel Cost will be an interesting equation once we have the Figures Devblog so that we can start Crunching actual numbers.
Small POS -> Medium POS -> Large POS 2 Arrays -> 6 Arrays -> 12 Arrays(or what ever is currently normal for a POS) With a constant of 40 Jobs per Week? = what is the Congestion %? 80 Jobs per Week? Congestion %? 160 Jobs per Week? Congestion %? 320 Jobs per Week? Congestion %? 640 Jobs per Week? Congestion %?
(Fuel Cost based on the POS size divided by the number of jobs) + the Congestion Fees
Like I said for a small or one man Corp and his alts, perhaps a small POS with only a couple of Labs/arrays overloaded to 60 Jobs per week is only 1% and is cheaper than running the Larger Tower/s at 0%
Again all speculation until we see the figures blog
|
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
526
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:17:00 -
[910] - Quote
So Blueprints need to be stored in the POS to use them there?
What constitutes use? Are we talking ME/PE/copy work only, or also manufacturing?
If it's the later, forcing me to store my potentially high-value BPO in the POS, then I can see some benefits in making a lot of BPCs somewhere down in a station, and then store those in the POS instead, and produce from them, thus not risking losing my precious BPO. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5361
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:18:00 -
[911] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: CCP has repeatedly tried, and failed, to entice high-sec players to take more risks and engage in PVP. But, the highest priority of high-sec players has always been "safety" - this is why they stay in high-sec. No reason to expect this player behavior to change.
I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread.
Sadly you are quite right and these players will be the first to flock over SC once it's out. Also is the main reason why we keep throwing money at SC at an insane rate, the beauty of industry and science in EVE is already vanished.. EVE now is more about being the biggest badass and villan including the excesive ussage of mayo. Not to mention the fact that for being competitive you have to take EVE as a secondary job, not a game.
Premise: I pay subs for EvE, in my personal (that is, I don't want to convince anyone else I am "right", it's just me) opinion if a game it's worth playing, then it's worth paying. Else, I won't play it even for free.
Said that: it's two different games. I have paid many subs per month to CCP since my beginning years ago and don't feel any "remorse" for having done so. EvE has it's distinctive personality well beyond "bullies" or "griefers" or whatever funny name people give to others. EvE - to me, again - missed a dogfight mode. Inexcusable to even propose WiS when your spaceships are just mouse clicker submarines physics based. Not saying WiS is bad - it's probably nice to have, but a spaceships game without nice spaceships duels imo misses the target. Still good for trading, manufacturing and other though.
SC has its own very different personality and I deeply wait to be able and pew pew on those juicy ships I have preodered. I have preodered a number of ships and hangars (RL money currently is not an issue) including the one featured in the awesome display they held at PAX. I am not convinced by its manufacturing model, to me it seems shallow and too little market oriented, but we'll see. In the mean time I'll trade goods on my massive merchant ship (it even includes a dogfight ship in its bay!) and pew pew mostly with the Hornet. If industry and markets will be good, then I'll just be happier!
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dast Aldurald
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:18:00 -
[912] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dast Aldurald wrote:ok, all this is interesting but: 1) no standing needed for pos? really I have a suggestion that would let CCP reward those who (like me too) grinded standings or have standings-raise professions and so on: Have the new POS slots fees depend (in a minor way) also from standings. So, everyone can put up a POS but those with standings get a discount. Voil+á, two birds with one stone!
i have a better suggestion: let the pos lines fees not be at all, cause we already paying for fuel, starbase charters, and we all are at risk of ofwars cause we'll have bpo's on poses.
smb wrote about the game is becoming second work. i agree, now you cant just fuel you pos and leave for a week you'll also need to take your bpos away cause if you forget to, smb can come and you'll lose both bpos and pos place |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:20:00 -
[913] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It's only a problem if it leaves Seller A without customers. The thing about the BPO portion of production is that it doesn't have the volume to do so, so A still sells his goods at a useful margin. Seller B would also be pretty stupid to undercut A that much since that just means he earns far less than he otherwise could..
This happens alot more often in trade hubs outside of Jita, someone who want to put more product up just undercuts the crazy out of the inventors to clear his stock and put up more. He then puts his next batch at a once again competitive price. If everyone could only invent this would be fine because he would now be losing isk, but he doesn't.
Halia Thorak wrote:So the real question that everyone is wondering, how many BPO's do you have? Zero, because they're a waste of money and offer me no useful advantage over the invention I do.[/quote]
Wait so you're arguing for the side of keeping T2 BPO's in just for the sake of arguing?
|
Valterra Craven
184
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:23:00 -
[914] - Quote
Tippia wrote:and the changes in T2 BPO copying speed won't affect that margin. You're still competing against other inventors since invention is still what will set the market price.
The point is that T2 BPOs confer a significant advantage in terms of margin when produced off them. The question then becomes is why this mechanic still exists given the state of the market today and the fact that t2 BPO's are no longer being given out. I still have seen nothing to suggest that CCP has curtailed the favoritism of certain groups of players sinse the BoB t2 BPO scandal.
Tippia wrote: It's only a problem if it leaves Seller A without customers. The thing about the BPO portion of production is that it doesn't have the volume to do so, so A still sells his goods at a useful margin. Seller B would also be pretty stupid to undercut A that much since that just means he earns far less than he otherwise could.
I'm not suggesting that Seller B is going to immediately sell his goods 10-20% bellow seller A. The point is that seller B will ALWAYS be able to undercut Seller A be a significant margin and will always "win" the .01 isk price wars.
Therefore Seller B will always have customers, and always have margin. The same can not be said of inventors.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20857
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:25:00 -
[915] - Quote
Halia Thorak wrote:This happens alot more often in trade hubs outside of Jita, someone who want to put more product up just undercuts the crazy out of the inventors to clear his stock and put up more. He then puts his next batch at a once again competitive price. If everyone could only invent this would be fine because he would now be losing isk, but he doesn't. Sure, if you trade in a low-volume market, you run into low-volume issues. The solution to that is to not trade in low-volume markets.
Quote:Wait so you're arguing for the side of keeping T2 BPO's in just for the sake of arguing? No, I'm arguing for keeping them because there is no reason to remove them from the game; no way to remove them that is equitable to those who have invested in them; and because looking at the T2 products that lack BPOs suggests that removing them will actually hurt my business.
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. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5361
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:26:00 -
[916] - Quote
Querns wrote:Hint: Star Citizen is a scam. They are walking away with your money.
They are making modules and show them in public and then make them available for everyone to download and toy with.
In the end if it turns into a scam but entertrained people for 10 hours it has just delivered AS MUCH AS a regular single player game.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5586
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:26:00 -
[917] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Tippa the issue was never about market share, the volume of the market doesn't matter to a single seller. What matters to the single seller is MARGIN. GǪand the changes in T2 BPO copying speed won't affect that margin. You're still competing against other inventors since invention is still what will set the market price. Quote:T2 BPO have margin advantages that no one else has in game. IF seller A can produce item 1 for 250k and seller B can produce 1 item for 150k he can sell out of his entire stock below the production cost of Seller A and STILL be profitable. That's the problem here. It's only a problem if it leaves Seller A without customers. The thing about the BPO portion of production is that it doesn't have the volume to do so, so A still sells his goods at a useful margin. Seller B would also be pretty stupid to undercut A that much since that just means he earns far less than he otherwise could. Halia Thorak wrote:So the real question that everyone is wondering, how many BPO's do you have? Zero, because they're a waste of money and offer me no useful advantage over the invention I do. On the flip side of the coin, I have 2 T2 BPO's, the Pilgrim and the Guardian.
At best, I can produce one ship a day (roughly) from each of these BPO's.
I could possibly (if I make all of my own materials, which is very time consuming and requires an alt devoted to the task and even then 1 alt can't produce it all) have an advantage over invention of 10 to 20% margin on the selling price.
Of course I don't. I sell at a competitive price because I'm not really into cutting off my nose to spite my face.
My 25 to 30 ships of each type produced each month don't cover a fraction of the demand in Amarr, let alone Jita (or other trade hubs). I can bring prices in the area down slightly for a day or two if I stock pile the ships for a month and dump them en mass... but then again an inventory that has had good luck, made good decisions, and supplies his own materials could easily do the same. 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. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6968
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:27:00 -
[918] - Quote
why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
708
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:29:00 -
[919] - Quote
Quote: This is a good death. There's no shame in this, in a man's death. A man who's done fine works. We're making a better world. All of them, better worlds.
seems appropriate And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:32:00 -
[920] - Quote
I haven't read through all the comments yet so i'm not sure if someone already suggested this but if your going to remove the slot layout and replace it with multiplicative values per job running at said location one thing you could do to give Null / Low sec the advantage is drastically cut down on the costs so they don't multiply to nearly as much with more jobs running.
Theoretically if you gave Null Stations a 70-80% Reduction in costs than even with more jobs running the percent reduction means that there is still a profit margin despite the multiplications, it also avoids possible imbalance through free or non multiplicative runs so one person with dozens of alts can't have 100 jobs going at the cost it would be if that was the only Job running in the station at all.
And Maybe for low sec a 25-40% Reduction, makes it worth risking if you want the profit margin but also more dangerous for you to move your goods in most circumstances.
Unrelated sidenote - Thanks for implementing these changes I used to be an industrialist so i know how bad the shoe needed shinning in this case, keep up the good work CCP. |
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
371
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:35:00 -
[921] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here We have insufficient details on the actual changes for any reasonable discussion.
So an unreasonable discussion broke out instead.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20857
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:35:00 -
[922] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:The point is that T2 BPOs confer a significant advantage in terms of margin when produced off them. GǪand the counterpoint is that this margin is eaten up almost completely by the cost of the BPO, to the point where it's a very efficient way of not getting any ROI at all.
Quote:The question then becomes is why this mechanic still exists given the state of the market today and the fact that t2 BPO's are no longer being given out. They exist because, as mentioned, there's no reason to remove them and no way to do so equitably, and because they are just BPOs GÇö there is no special mechanic that still exists.
Quote:I'm not suggesting that Seller B is going to immediately sell his goods 10-20% bellow seller A. The point is that seller B will ALWAYS be able to undercut Seller A by a significant margin and will always "win" the .01 isk price wars. GǪand then he will run out of stock and A will get his sales, so he will also always have customers and margin, because it is the inventors that actually control the market.
Ranger 1 wrote:On the flip side of the coin, I have 2 T2 BPO's, the Pilgrim and the Guardian.
At best, I can produce one ship a day (roughly) from each of these BPO's. As a point of comparison, I invent Guardians. By pure accident, I managed to queue up 38 of them this month alongside the 10 other T2 ships I was going for (note to self: check which BPOs have already been copied before tossing a new run into the mixer). My biggest problem is not making money, but having all my slots clogged with these #"/&% CPU and armour plate components because I'm too stubborn to outsource that part. 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. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
620
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:36:00 -
[923] - Quote
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 CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:38:00 -
[924] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here We have insufficient details on the actual changes for any reasonable discussion. So an unreasonable discussion broke out instead.
This, If they would of just given us numbers we would of been able to not just talk speculation |
Valterra Craven
185
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:38:00 -
[925] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle
Because they are redoing the entirety of industry and how it works and removing old legacy code etc and they STILL aren't getting rid/fixing the t2 BPO issue. That's why. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
228
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:39:00 -
[926] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle Exactly for that - a feedback to CCP to not significantly lower the copy time below the current build time
Halia Thorak wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here We have insufficient details on the actual changes for any reasonable discussion. So an unreasonable discussion broke out instead. This, If they would of just given us numbers we would of been able to not just talk speculation Exactly why they didn't give the numbers first - speculations in a feedback thread can reveal potential downsides and provide pretty good feedback. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5587
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:54:00 -
[927] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle Exactly for that - a feedback to CCP to not significantly lower the copy time below the current build time Halia Thorak wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here We have insufficient details on the actual changes for any reasonable discussion. So an unreasonable discussion broke out instead. This, If they would of just given us numbers we would of been able to not just talk speculation Exactly why they didn't give the numbers first - speculations in a feedback thread can reveal potential downsides and provide pretty good feedback. Because the 1st blog was already a small novel. I don't blame them at all for wanting to do it in smaller, more detailed sections.
Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault. They've been crystal clear about what each of the upcoming blogs will cover. 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. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
374
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:03:00 -
[928] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault. Nonsense, it's a CCP DEV GOON PL CIA HYRDA RELOADED COMMUNIST consipiracy and we should all run for the hills with utmost urgency. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5587
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:08:00 -
[929] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault. Nonsense, it's a CCP DEV GOON PL CIA HYRDA RELOADED COMMUNIST consipiracy and we should all run for the hills with utmost urgency. Heh, undoubtedly.
No, I see the point that constructive speculation can be a good thing... but it oh so easily gets swept off into the realm of "worst case what if" scenario's that make little if any sense. Those discussions are counter productive, especially when they stem from a misunderstanding of how things currently work in game, providing false assumptions as to how potential changes will affect those behaviors/mechanics. 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. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3073
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:09:00 -
[930] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault. Nonsense, it's a CCP DEV GOON PL CIA HYRDA RELOADED COMMUNIST consipiracy and we should all run for the hills with utmost urgency.
Actually, I set it up, so there's more clamouring for a CSM member who does industy (with my magical time travelling CSM 9 powers) Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5367
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:09:00 -
[931] - Quote
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
Hello,
have you read my suggestion post?
I think it's a good idea and I am starting to get likes about it Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Halia Thorak
Helheim Forge
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:09:00 -
[932] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Because the 1st blog was already a small novel. I don't blame them at all for wanting to do it in smaller, more detailed sections.
Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault. They've been crystal clear about what each of the upcoming blogs will cover.
For likely 90% of the people who produce the goods that everyone buys this first devblog contains a lot of changes to how we go about our production. And without any numbers attached to words like " less and more " we're left to guess if we are all going to be eating a giant sunk cost after this expansion hits. CCP knows better then to use "less and more" without inciting fear and panic, and their recent track record with "balance changes" is very hit and miss. Though the UI looks like it might reduce the click fest hopefully
That being said i do love the new faction battle ship changes, that team clearly has a vision in mind and has though everything out completely. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3348
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:10:00 -
[933] - Quote
sci0gon wrote:ccp confirmation required.
when this change goes live will the bpos that were in the middle of production at the time be relocated to any pos mods that the production was started in or will it continue to export back to its locked down status in the station?
also is there the possibility that you guys may complete all build jobs on the server to free up the bpos so that the players can have peace of mind during the update that they are safely in the station and will have to decide after that whether or not they wish to continue to build in a pos or stick to station building?
also will there be any other purpose to high standings than what is in the game currently?
The issue regarding how to migrate blueprints using starbase when the expansion hits has been noted. We'll update this thread when we have more information about this. |
|
Cornelius Maximo
Passive-Aggressive Production's Night Sky Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:20:00 -
[934] - Quote
Currently a corporation in an alliance can anchor a POS and allow alliance members to do ME and PE. The alliance member only needs to rent an office and do the research from that office.
So with this new change you will either have to do research at a station for whatever the NPC price is or move your blueprints to a POS and research/copy there.
Current POS mechanics restricts the other corporations of the alliance with the ability to put items into a corporate hangar array/ labs of the POS, but they cannot take anything out.
So will this change effectively kill the ability of an alliance to setup a POS specifically for allowing its members to do research or will POS game mechanics be changed to allow the owning corp to setup some type of check in check out system for blueprints for corporations in the alliance? |
Sunrise Aigele
Pemberley Enterprises BadWrongFun
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:22:00 -
[935] - Quote
I am almost giggling to see 6 dev blogs concerning industry. Thank you! It is almost enough to make me forget that I will have to throw out a lot of work and start over.
I am sorry you could not fit invention into the schedule. The invention interface has been steadily nibbling away at my sanity. |
Klarion Sythis
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
279
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:28:00 -
[936] - Quote
sci0gon wrote: also is there the possibility that you guys may complete all build jobs on the server to free up the bpos so that the players can have peace of mind during the update that they are safely in the station and will have to decide after that whether or not they wish to continue to build in a pos or stick to station building?
Lol are you kidding? Let me start as many Titan builds as I can first, thanks.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3853
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:30:00 -
[937] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Because they are redoing the entirety of industry and how it works and removing old legacy code etc and they STILL aren't getting rid/fixing the t2 BPO issue. That's why.
How long ago did the t2 BPO lottery end? At LEAST 5+ years ago (Source), although I've heard estimates of 7-8 years ago (source).
You might have had a case for obliterating T2 BPOs many, many years ago, where people originally obtained t2 BPO's using a fair amount of effort with a dosing of luck. However, at this point, most people that have them worked for them (by thieving, killing, or buying them). Removing them now is just wrong on many levels, primarily because you're destroying years of efforts of many players that use them as investment items, which acquired them by fair and balanced means.
Now, no one can dispute that T2 BPO's allow players to produce a t2 items more profitably compared to invention (that is, when you ignore the cost of acquiring the T2 BPO and look at a manufacturing cost on a per item basis). But most items in game are profitably produced by invention, and attacking the T2 BPO holders really won't result in you making more isk (instead, those T2 QQ'ers that "can't compete" will just realize more quickly that they are just bad at T2 Production, probably because they aren't informed).
So, before you respond, you need to go look at the facts:
In March 2012, the percentage of modules produce from invention:
93.95% of T2 Gyrostabilizers, 89.77% of 1400mm II, 87.34% of 425mm Rail II, 82.00% of Tachyon II, 74.23% of Torpedo Launcher II.
In March 2012, the percentage of ships produce from invention:
90.23% of Hulks, 67.85% of Sabres 65.01% of Wolves 22.16% of Pilgrims 6.00% of Eagles
Data Source Additional Data Source Direct Source <-- Have to search to find the relevant tweets.
Here's the point: Modules and Ammo are primarily produced through invention, so removal of those BPO's wont do anything but HURT the BPO holder. These producers wont see more profit, and the consumers wont get any items cheaper. Considering the work most BPO holders put in to acquire their BPO, this is just cruel and wrong to do!!!! Now, some specific T2 ship production is often dominated by t2 BPO holders, however these items move slowly and are typically priced BELOW the invention production cost. As such, removing these BPO's would result in HIGHER PRICES for people that want to buy these ships! How is that good???? Sure, it means people that want to produce Eagles via invention could then make a profit, but who wants to reward the idiotic fool that is trying to produce slow moving T2 Ships for profit by paying more for those ships????
I have few more points: 1.) Supply and Demand Market forcing very much sets the price point in this game. GÖª For any item with a high rate of movement, T2 BPO's produce very little of the market volume. What this means to inventors is that they are primarily competing against other inventors. T2 BPO producers enjoy healthy profit margins without messing up your profits. GÖª For any item with a very low rate of movement, T2 BPO's produce the majority of the market volume. What this means to inventors is that they have a very hard time competing in the market. So what! When competition is present, it is very hard to make a profit in these highly competitive markets, even if T2 BPO holders didn't exist. The competent inventor either knows the risks going in and uses other market tools to earn their profit (convenience, etc).
2.) T2 BPO's bring value to the game. They insure low-volume goods may be produced at a reasonable price. They are rare collectibles who's value varies significantly while retaining a level of utility. They are coveted, creating a source of conflict.
3.) Many serious producers secure moongoo and minerals at below market value. If you are competing against them, you're just going to lose, as they're material costs are far lower than yours. Should this be fixed too? I think not, I like getting cheaper items.
4.) This is the duplicate of an old post I made. Many things have changed in the last two years (new decrytpors, ship balance changes have altered supply/demand curves, the moongoo bottleneck has changed), but the message is the same. You can make plenty of isk via invention, and you can compete in most MFG markets. If you are having trouble making ends meet, it is because of your incompetence, not because of some mythical T2 BPO holder! There is no reason to remove T2 BPO's from the game at this stage, as they don't offer you any advantages you can't utilize yourself (because you too can buy a T2 BPO).
|
Master Flakattack
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:35:00 -
[938] - Quote
I am getting mixed messages here: will POS slots be affected by "congestion" pricing? It would be totally ridiculous to do so, considering the already high cost of operating a POS (which is likely to go up once people can drop a POS anywhere with no standings required) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3853
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:37:00 -
[939] - Quote
CCP:
One thing you didn't address in the changes to R.A.M. is what you will do with existing R.A.M. modules in the game. I assume you will simply multiply all the current R.A.M. mods in game by 100 to keep the balance, but would like confirmation.
I bring this up, because I have 1000's of R.A.M. items that I use for production, which represents 100m isk worth of materials. If you are NOT going to alter the number of R.A.M. I have to be equivalent to the new R.A.M. consumption/production rates, then I can simply plan to use up all the R.A.M. I have no problems. I simply would like clarification so I can plan appropriately. |
Centurax
Eve Engineering Authority Eve Engineering
47
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:38:00 -
[940] - Quote
This may have been covered but would still be good to know...
So how is this new slot-less build system going to effect Starbases does this mean we will need less labs and factories set up on them OR does the current slot system still apply?
Also would this be a good time to streamline the types of build and lab structures on Starbases (keep the capital ones I have no issues with keeping those separate)?
Is it possible to give those of us who grinded standings for our corps to get some sort of bonus to running Starbases now that they will be able to be deployed anywhere?
Otherwise I really like the way this is going. |
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
377
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:38:00 -
[941] - Quote
Master Flakattack wrote:I am getting mixed messages here: will POS slots be affected by "congestion" pricing? It would be totally ridiculous to do so, considering the already high cost of operating a POS (which is likely to go up once people can drop a POS anywhere with no standings required) YES. POS slots will be affected by congestion pricing.
We do not know how much it will be and we do not know if there will be other changes that also relate to the economies of running a POS, so there is no need for panic at this time. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3853
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:38:00 -
[942] - Quote
Master Flakattack wrote:I am getting mixed messages here: will POS slots be affected by "congestion" pricing? It would be totally ridiculous to do so, considering the already high cost of operating a POS (which is likely to go up once people can drop a POS anywhere with no standings required)
Yes, POS's will be affected by congestion pricing.
There will no longer be "lines" at the Assembly Arrays, and "congestion" pricing is the mechanism CCP is using to limit your production. How this will help/hurt you has yet to be released, and we need to wait a week or three for the relevant dev blog.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3853
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:42:00 -
[943] - Quote
Centurax wrote:This may have been covered but would still be good to know...
So how is this new slot-less build system going to effect Starbases does this mean we will need less labs and factories set up on them OR does the current slot system still apply?
We don't know... and we must wait for the relevant dev blog.
Centurax wrote:Also would this be a good time to streamline the types of build and lab structures on Starbases (keep the capital ones I have no issues with keeping those separate)?
Perhaps. I bet CCP has some of this in the pipes already.
Centurax wrote: Is it possible to give those of us who grinded standings for our corps to get some sort of bonus to running Starbases now that they will be able to be deployed anywhere?
I support giving standings more meaning. I'd suggest that Personal, Corp, and Alliance standings reduce costs of using Station services (like they do with broker fees), and perhaps benefits in other ways.
|
Valterra Craven
185
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:43:00 -
[944] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Stuff
T2 BPOs should have been removed from the game from the get go. If they are doing such massive changes to industry and STILL leave them in the game, that is wrong. They are legacy items of an age gone by. The production facts are irrelevant. The same investment arguements were made back then as well and they make little difference today. People invest billions into play styles across all of Eve and when **** hits the fan and major changes happen everyone that wanted the change is always HTFU, Well that same argument applies here. T2 BPOs should be removed from the game and investors should HTFU. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6972
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:45:00 -
[945] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Stuff
T2 BPOs should have been removed from the game from the get go. If they are doing such massive changes to industry and STILL leave them in the game, that is wrong. They are legacy items of an age gone by. The production facts are irrelevant. The same investment arguements were made back then as well and they make little difference today. People invest billions into play styles across all of Eve and when **** hits the fan and major changes happen everyone that wanted the change is always HTFU, Well that same argument applies here. T2 BPOs should be removed from the game and investors should HTFU. who cares take your unrelated whining to some other thread Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1468
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:46:00 -
[946] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle It's here because CCP said they would look at reducing the copy times. Right now many industrialists don't have a problem with them because of the high copy time and production volume restrictions balance with invention. If you start changing that without a positive balancing change to invention, then it looks like you are favoring T2 BPO owners over invention. Then of course whenever something like this happens, the same t2 bpo comments over the last 7 years get pulled out and thrown back and forth.
Basically, by saying that they would make a change they stirred up the hornets nest and acknowledged they were open to making changes to T2 BPOs, something unthinkable for many of us. For something that's pissed off a number of people in the last 7 years, in a thread with a dev comment on it, why would you expect anything other than a heated debate about it regardless of numbers?
We all have our opinions of T2 BPOs and given the lack of focus on industry until now, this is probably the best and probably only time to get your opinion in front of someone that could do something about it. Might as well put in your two cents now. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Mila Joevovich
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:47:00 -
[947] - Quote
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. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
228
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:48:00 -
[948] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: CCP:
One thing you didn't address in the changes to R.A.M. is what you will do with existing R.A.M. modules in the game. I assume you will simply multiply all the current R.A.M. mods in game by 100 to keep the balance, but would like confirmation.
I bring this up, because I have 1000's of R.A.M. items that I use for production, which represents 100m isk worth of materials. If you are NOT going to alter the number of R.A.M. I have to be equivalent to the new R.A.M. consumption/production rates, then I can simply plan to use up all the R.A.M. I have no problems. I simply would like clarification so I can plan appropriately.
They will be multiplied everywhere: Hangars, cargoholds, market, contracts,... My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6972
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:51:00 -
[949] - Quote
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 Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3853
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:52:00 -
[950] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: CCP:
One thing you didn't address in the changes to R.A.M. is what you will do with existing R.A.M. modules in the game. I assume you will simply multiply all the current R.A.M. mods in game by 100 to keep the balance, but would like confirmation.
I bring this up, because I have 1000's of R.A.M. items that I use for production, which represents 100m isk worth of materials. If you are NOT going to alter the number of R.A.M. I have to be equivalent to the new R.A.M. consumption/production rates, then I can simply plan to use up all the R.A.M. I have no problems. I simply would like clarification so I can plan appropriately.
They will be multiplied everywhere: Hangars, cargoholds, market, contracts,...
While this makes sense, and I'd assume that would be CCP's plan, I did not see this explicitly stated. Did I miss a dev comment proclaiming this? |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3348
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:55:00 -
[951] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote: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.
All extra materials are turned into regular materials, that will indeed be now affected by skills and waste. Except for Tech I ships and items, as such:
- You should never see a Paladin require 2 Apocalypses to build
- You should never see a Large shield Extender II require 0.75 Large Shield Extender I to build
|
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
377
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:55:00 -
[952] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Squelch wrote:H3llHound wrote: One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch.
Where did you see this? The only thing I see in the Devblog is: 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.That doesn't mention existing stocks. Confirming this means existing stock including in market orders, contracts etc |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3351
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:56:00 -
[953] - Quote
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. |
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
230
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:58:00 -
[954] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: CCP:
One thing you didn't address in the changes to R.A.M. is what you will do with existing R.A.M. modules in the game. I assume you will simply multiply all the current R.A.M. mods in game by 100 to keep the balance, but would like confirmation.
I bring this up, because I have 1000's of R.A.M. items that I use for production, which represents 100m isk worth of materials. If you are NOT going to alter the number of R.A.M. I have to be equivalent to the new R.A.M. consumption/production rates, then I can simply plan to use up all the R.A.M. I have no problems. I simply would like clarification so I can plan appropriately.
They will be multiplied everywhere: Hangars, cargoholds, market, contracts,... While this makes sense, and I'd assume that would be CCP's plan, I did not see this explicitly stated. Did I miss a dev comment proclaiming this?
Link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474706#post4474706 My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Sunrise Aigele
Pemberley Enterprises BadWrongFun
26
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:58:00 -
[955] - Quote
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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5592
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:01:00 -
[956] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:Weaselior wrote:why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle It's here because CCP said they would look at reducing the copy times. Right now many industrialists don't have a problem with them because of the high copy time and production volume restrictions balance with invention. If you start changing that without a positive balancing change to invention, then it looks like you are favoring T2 BPO owners over invention. Then of course whenever something like this happens, the same t2 bpo comments over the last 7 years get pulled out and thrown back and forth. Basically, by saying that they would make a change they stirred up the hornets nest and acknowledged they were open to making changes to T2 BPOs, something unthinkable for many of us. For something that's pissed off a number of people in the last 7 years, in a thread with a dev comment on it, why would you expect anything other than a heated debate about it regardless of numbers? We all have our opinions of T2 BPOs and given the lack of focus on industry until now, this is probably the best and probably only time to get your opinion in front of someone that could do something about it. Might as well put in your two cents now. However people should still keep in mind that any changes to copy times will benefit the inventor far, far more than the T2 BPO owner. And all of these arguments have been discussed for years, and the hard evidence on the market shows they have zero substance... so lets not waste anymore time trying to prop up what amounts to using T2 BPO's as a scapegoat for poor invention skills/decisions. These assumptions have been proven false time and again, and have little to no relevance to this discussion unless CCP went completely off the deep end and reduced copy times on T2 BPO's only by a HUGE percentage, which is extremely unlikely. 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3855
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:02:00 -
[957] - 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.
It sounds like he's botting his S&I activities, and the new interface will ruin his bot.
|
Valterra Craven
186
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:02:00 -
[958] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:
who cares take your unrelated whining to some other thread
Same could be said of your comments. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
140
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:03:00 -
[959] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote: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. All extra materials are turned into regular materials, that will indeed be now affected by skills and waste. Except for Tech I ships and items, as such:
- You should never see a Paladin require 2 Apocalypses to build
- You should never see a Large shield Extender II require 0.75 Large Shield Extender I to build
Great, thanks for clarifying this. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5592
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:03:00 -
[960] - Quote
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. After that humorless post you don't need to be guilty of making assumptions to put on those donkey ears. 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. |
|
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
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. |
|
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:55:00 -
[991] - Quote
Maybe the players that run eve should take a look across the water and see how the healthcare revamp in the colonies is being received and working out. Huge changes all the time, i attribute it to fear of next year, that alienates everyone is not good.
Stop paying attention to the BWAAAAAAmbulance that changes its mind every couple of months about what it wants and start introducing new content that everyone, not only the BWAAAAAmbulance drivers, can participate in and enjoy.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
770
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:57:00 -
[992] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
Dinsdale for csm9! Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf In Doubt....Do....Excessively. Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2678
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:59:00 -
[993] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: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.
You might be surprised how many quit once the full impact hits. But it will be impossible to tell.
Remember, the vast majority of casual players don't even read the forums, let alone the dev blogs. The 1st time they will know about the changes is when this goes live, and they head to their POS on day 1 of the new world.
How many individuals actually post and read the forums. I bet CCP could easily count the amount of unique IP's that visited the forums in the past 3 months, and how many accounts were used to post on the forums.
Wanna bet it is a tiny fraction of the sub base? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3859
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:01:00 -
[994] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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.
We don't know the price points because details on POS S&I have yet to be released. More risk for more reward is the paradigm CCP mentioned in the blog, and people can chose the level of risk they wish to take. Just because you think having BPO's in a POS is too much risk does not mean everyone else will.
I have a research POS with 10 Labs on it today, and had to deal with wardecs of the billion+ POS loot. Learning how to arm your POS will thwart many would-be attackers. Having friends to aid you in times of war goes even farther for securing your assets. Furthermore, the 24hr warning before a war goes active provides a nice window to get your stuff safe. There are many ways you can make POS assets fairly safe, you just have to utilize them. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
141
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:01:00 -
[995] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Max Kolonko wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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 Haha. This is too funny. |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
260
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:03:00 -
[996] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:You might be surprised how many quit once the full impact hits. But it will be impossible to tell.
Remember, the vast majority of casual players don't even read the forums, let alone the dev blogs. The 1st time they will know about the changes is when this goes live, and they head to their POS on day 1 of the new world.
How many individuals actually post and read the forums. I bet CCP could easily count the amount of unique IP's that visited the forums in the past 3 months, and how many accounts were used to post on the forums.
Wanna bet it is a tiny fraction of the sub base? Ignorantia juris non excusat |
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
770
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:03:00 -
[997] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: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. You might be surprised how many quit once the full impact hits. great! room fo me and mine! Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf In Doubt....Do....Excessively. Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3859
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:05:00 -
[998] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: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. You might be surprised how many quit once the full impact hits. But it will be impossible to tell. Remember, the vast majority of casual players don't even read the forums, let alone the dev blogs. The 1st time they will know about the changes is when this goes live, and they head to their POS on day 1 of the new world. How many individuals actually post and read the forums. I bet CCP could easily count the amount of unique IP's that visited the forums in the past 3 months, and how many accounts were used to post on the forums. Wanna bet it is a tiny fraction of the sub base?
Large changes like this will spread by word of mouth, and most will be aware of the changes before they hit even if they don't read the forums. Anyone who plays this game longer than 6 months knows that CCP releases expansions regularly, and those expansions come with major changes. They will know the next expansion is coming, and I bet less than 10% of the player base will be "in the dark" come release day.
|
I LIKE IT
HIGH RISK INVESTMENT
176
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:09:00 -
[999] - Quote
I LIKE IT! |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2679
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:09:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:You might be surprised how many quit once the full impact hits. But it will be impossible to tell.
Remember, the vast majority of casual players don't even read the forums, let alone the dev blogs. The 1st time they will know about the changes is when this goes live, and they head to their POS on day 1 of the new world.
How many individuals actually post and read the forums. I bet CCP could easily count the amount of unique IP's that visited the forums in the past 3 months, and how many accounts were used to post on the forums.
Wanna bet it is a tiny fraction of the sub base? Ignorantia juris non excusat
This not some court of law. This is a game, well, a hobby for many.
You want to punish people for not keeping up with the cesspool of forums or the dev's intent on turning this game completely into some Ayn Rand dystopia. By all means. I can't stop you. You are pl, which thrives on hurting others, so no surprise there. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
394
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:12:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: This not some court of law. This is a game, well, a hobby for many.
You want to punish people for not keeping up with the cesspool of forums or the dev's intent on turning this game completely into some Ayn Rand dystopia. By all means. I can't stop you. You are pl, which thrives on hurting others, so no surprise there.
If only there was some sort of non-forums way to keep up with changes. Perhaps the devs could put out some sort of web log of major changes to the game. A devblog, if you will. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Destiven Mare
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:19:00 -
[1002] - Quote
I understand CCP's real motivation to release the blogs in segments: to drum up anticipation and interest in an area that is difficult for some players to understand/care about
However, for those of us that both understand and do industry/science on a regular basis and need answers to the dozens of open questions that are raised parts 1 and 2 in this series of blogs, we are understandably frustrated by the "Hide the ball approach" of "wait until we publish the rest of the story." The cover of "if we do it in one post, then it will be too long" is both flimsy and insulting. The industrial community is not replete with "tl:dr" types.
It is utterly infuriating for CCP to open so many different avenues in one dev blog yet fail to answer the logical questions posed by the playerbase by saying: "just wait, we will tell you later."
Don't treat us like this CCP. We deserve better. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
91
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:20:00 -
[1003] - Quote
Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. There is no magical invisible person doing anything other than me. Sure, I can live with only copying from now on at stations, but if you are going to add scaling cost to invention and manufacturing at a POS on top of the fuel cost, then why would I bother having a POS at all? I will just JF to one of the 50+ stations that is under PL / BOT control and manufacture there. The JF fuel cost is negligible compared to the cost of maintaining a POS.
Topes used in 1 Rhea JDC V, JFC V, JF IV: +/- 7k Nitrogen Isotopes
Cost of 1 day for a medium POS: 9600 Nitrogen Isotopes
...and that is just the topes ALONE.
There is literally no reason for anyone with access to multiple null outposts to ever use a POS for invention or manufacturing after this change, unless the tax is stupid high. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
396
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:22:00 -
[1004] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. There is no magical invisible person doing anything other than me. Sure, I can live with only copying from now on at stations, but if you are going to add scaling cost to invention and manufacturing at a POS on top of the fuel cost, then why would I bother having a POS at all? I will just JF to one of the 50+ stations that is under PL / BOT control and manufacture there. The JF fuel cost is negligible compared to the cost of maintaining a POS.
Topes used in 1 Rhea JDC V, JFC V, JF IV: +/- 7k Nitrogen Isotopes
Cost of 1 day for a medium POS: 9600 Nitrogen Isotopes
...and that is just the topes ALONE.
There is literally no reason for anyone with access to multiple null outposts to ever use a POS for invention or manufacturing after this change, unless the tax is stupid high. Save your apoplexy until the costs devblog hits. You are experiencing an upset episode from a position of inferior information. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
4597
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:38:00 -
[1005] - Quote
Two step wrote:Given that you want people to move to POS industry, any chance you can just delete the 8 million different POS factory things and make a more sensible set of them? Give people efficient/fast and just a few sizes, but don't make us anchor 15 different stupid factories and move stuff between then?
Also, as was mentioned above, people *need* to be able to see into their POS inventories remotely, without having to use the API (especially because the assets API is, what, a 6 hour cache time?). The API also currently doesn't return ME/PE levels for BPOs/BPOs, so it isn't a real replacement anyway.
Still waiting for a reply on this from the Devs. It got a lot of likes, I think other people would also appreciate a response. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3861
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:49:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Destiven Mare wrote:I understand CCP's real motivation to release the blogs in segments: to drum up anticipation and interest in an area that is difficult for some players to understand/care about
However, for those of us that both understand and do industry/science on a regular basis and need answers to the dozens of open questions that are raised in parts 1 and 2 in this series of blogs, we are understandably frustrated by the "Hide the ball approach" of "wait until we publish the rest of the story." The cover of "if we do it in one post, then it will be too long" is both flimsy and insulting. The industrial community is not replete with "tl:dr" types.
It is utterly infuriating for CCP to open so many different avenues in one dev blog yet fail to answer the logical questions posed by the playerbase by saying: "just wait, we will tell you later."
Don't treat us like this CCP. We deserve better.
A few things you need to consider. GÖª This expansion is many months away. They are giving us time to absorb what is going on. They are giving those attending fanfest time to clarify their needs and questions. They are giving us time to identify issues.
GÖª They want to ensure the information is presented clearly, and honestly. This means they can't go all out explaining ever little detail, especially since not all the details are fully worked out. I'd prefer to know now, get my questions together on what I want to know, give them time to address it, and move on from there. Really, you should be happy you are getting this information now, as opposed to after fanfest (which is the normal timeframe).
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
629
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:52:00 -
[1007] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:...words...
This post is actually relevant and good feedback, if a bit disjointed.
Iconography is vitally important in a GUI. When someone looks at an icon, the symbology needs to be easily identifiable. Several of the proposed icons are just complete mysteries to me. But I'll go through the entire set.
The 3 icons on the top left:
- The top-most one had me staring for a minute before identifying it as a set of pliers. Specifically, they remind me of Linesman's Pliers for electrical use. Pliers are tools. So the connection is there. But many people won't make that connection if they've never seen linesman's pliers. So perhaps a wrench? I assume a wrench was not used because too many people might connect that with repairs. Also perhaps a hammer or anvil.
- Middle is indeed a TIP-body semiconductor device. Could be a transistor. Could be something more complicated. I know that because I work on electronics for a living. But the vast majority of players seeing that symbol will have no clue what it is. I can tell you it is a middle-level part made from other things that goes into another thing. So it makes sense to me, and will make sense to anyone that recognizes it. Perhaps a better, more easily recognized icon would be a cog or gear of some kind.
- Third is a crystal. Crystals, minerals... ok. I honestly can't think of anything better. But what about when you're making those parts? Will moon metals and gases also go here?
As for the circular bars, I like it. No numbers except where specifically required. Otherwise, fractional visual circular references. Color and center icon changes when it hits 100%. Same goes for the runs / runs remaining in the center. Again, I like it.
To the right of center, it took me a bit to figure out. The gemstone makes no sense on its own. Having it higher up puts it in the more prominent position and thus the first of the two to be looked at. Not until I look at the hourglass below it (an obvious time reference) do I realize that the hourglass is for Production Efficiency and the gem is for Material Efficiency.
But... not exactly. More like 6% waste, and... yeah. don't know. Is time being wasted or is efficiency increased... no frame of reference. Its very ahrd to understand what is going on here. Add some signs to those numbers. If you're adding materials to account for wastage, use a plus sign. If reducing time spent, then use a minus sign.
I also noticed that the actual levels are no longer listed. Will those be available somewhere?
States and Activities icons:
- The factory screams production and/or manufacturing. Perfect.
- Factory with an hourglass says right off Production Efficiency, but not necessarily research. Close enough.
- Factory with the gemstone, after figuring out from the stuff above, then logically flows to Material Efficiency research. But again, the factory doesn't necessarily indicate research but production. In combination with what we already know, it can work.
- Two beekers overlapping. Some sort of lab activity? Doesn't really make much sense. The dual aspect lends itself to copying.
- A microscope. Now this screams research of some kind. But what kind? All we have left is Invention and Reverse Engineering. But on a Megathron BPC?
- An atom. wtf... idgi. No idea. Again a Megathron BPC.
3 of the icons can be easily or semi-easily identified. One is iffy at best, and I'm not at all confident about that. The other two just make no sense. I can't even begin to fathom what they mean.
Suggestions:
For Reverse Engineering, use a Square. Not a basic geometric shape square. An actual Square: the tool. I feel that would be an excellent symbol for engineering. Alternatively, a compass, like the Free Masons use for a symbol. Not a magnetic compass. (Wanted to be clear.) Or even perhaps a slide rule.
For Invention use a light bulb. The symbology is obvious to me.
For Copying, 3 filled rectangles overlapping and offset in both axis would resemble a stack of paper, which is an obvious symbol of copying.
The other 3 should be fine.
And finally the job state icons. Big red 'X' stands out and contrasts the check marks that clearly indicate doneness and completion. Big red 'x' seems to indicate something is wrong. So a cancelled job that has yet be have the inputs returned?
Two different play icons. In process. But two. Which is which? What is the difference? A job is either running, canceled (red 'x'), complete (check-mark), or paused due to a tower going offline. Perhaps a paused job should have a pause double-bar symbol, and a running job should have a play symbol.
On background color and text emphasis: Imo subdued text should indicate low priority. Bright colors and backgrounds should be for high-priority "Look at me!" attention grabbing, like the big red 'x' job. If something is running normally, there really isn't any reason for it to have more attention than something that has finished and needs to be closed out, or has aborted and needs attention.
Swap the subdued and normal emphasis texts so that complete jobs are normal and running jobs are subdued.
Reserve bright backgrounds or bold(er) text for really important "look at me" jobs.
The blue background seems to me to be the currently selected item, and if so works fine for me. Coming soon... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3861
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:00:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. There is no magical invisible person doing anything other than me. Sure, I can live with only copying from now on at stations, but if you are going to add scaling cost to invention and manufacturing at a POS on top of the fuel cost, then why would I bother having a POS at all? I will just JF to one of the 50+ stations that is under PL / BOT control and manufacture there. The JF fuel cost is negligible compared to the cost of maintaining a POS.
Topes used in 1 Rhea JDC V, JFC V, JF IV: +/- 7k Nitrogen Isotopes
Cost of 1 day for a medium POS: 9600 Nitrogen Isotopes
...and that is just the topes ALONE.
There is literally no reason for anyone with access to multiple null outposts to ever use a POS for invention or manufacturing after this change, unless the tax is stupid high.
Lore should always take second place to game balance.
If CCP removes POS lines, and lets you run an infinite number of simultaneous jobs at a POS, with no cost, how do you imagine that will be balanced? Because you pay 300k / hr to run your Medium POS?
Calm down and wait for the numbers. Details will come, and you don't need them this second. Relax, breathe, and smile, as you don't even know if your getting a blowjob or ****** in the ass yet. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2679
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:01:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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. We don't know the price points because details on POS S&I have yet to be released. More risk for more reward is the paradigm CCP mentioned in the blog, and people can chose the level of risk they wish to take. Just because you think having BPO's in a POS is too much risk does not mean everyone else will. I have a research POS with 10 Labs on it today, and had to deal with wardecs of the billion+ POS loot. Learning how to arm your POS will thwart many would-be attackers. Having friends to aid you in times of war goes even farther for securing your assets. Furthermore, the 24hr warning before a war goes active provides a nice window to get your stuff safe. There are many ways you can make POS assets fairly safe, you just have to utilize them.
I too used to run a POS. I did T2 invention mfg and cap mfg in high sec and next door in low. Some of your corp members are likely flying in capitals I made for your group, before one of your guys moved on to PL. I had to deal with all the risks that you do today, and am well aware of the risk /reward balance we have today in high / low.
But bottom line, this looks more like lower reward / much higher risk is what we are facing. Do you seriously believe that CCP, who at every turn, has nerfed high sec income, is about to give it a buff? At best, costs will remain the same, and risk goes way higher.
But yeah, let's peg this conversation until the other shoe drops on costs, and we can see how much high sec industry just got hammered. Because we both know, that just like refining efficiency, the null sec cartels are about to be gifted huge advantages compared to high sec. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kithran
95
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:05:00 -
[1010] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:sci0gon wrote:ccp confirmation required.
when this change goes live will the bpos that were in the middle of production at the time be relocated to any pos mods that the production was started in or will it continue to export back to its locked down status in the station?
also is there the possibility that you guys may complete all build jobs on the server to free up the bpos so that the players can have peace of mind during the update that they are safely in the station and will have to decide after that whether or not they wish to continue to build in a pos or stick to station building?
also will there be any other purpose to high standings than what is in the game currently? The issue regarding how to migrate blueprints using starbase when the expansion hits has been noted. We'll update this thread when we have more information about this.
I know there isn't a release date for this expansion but please bear in mind if you are planning to move bpos under research into a POS when this expansion hits the answer needs to be known ideally 3 months in advance otherwise people could find titan bpos moved and being unable to do anything about it other than cancel the job.
Oh and before people say thats an edge case, people with those sort of bpos can afford it etc remember its still over a month for research on say a freighter bpo. |
|
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
389
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:09:00 -
[1011] - 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.
I don't care about ME/PE - i'm doing reverse and t3 production, i'm worried about my production slots. What is my incentive there?
What about my WH POS? Will it also miraculously start paying someone? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Destiven Mare
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:13:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Destiven Mare wrote:I understand CCP's real motivation to release the blogs in segments: to drum up anticipation and interest in an area that is difficult for some players to understand/care about
However, for those of us that both understand and do industry/science on a regular basis and need answers to the dozens of open questions that are raised in parts 1 and 2 in this series of blogs, we are understandably frustrated by the "Hide the ball approach" of "wait until we publish the rest of the story." The cover of "if we do it in one post, then it will be too long" is both flimsy and insulting. The industrial community is not replete with "tl:dr" types.
It is utterly infuriating for CCP to open so many different avenues in one dev blog yet fail to answer the logical questions posed by the playerbase by saying: "just wait, we will tell you later."
Don't treat us like this CCP. We deserve better. A few things you need to consider. GÖª This expansion is many months away. They are giving us time to absorb what is going on. They are giving those attending fanfest time to clarify their needs and questions. They are giving us time to identify issues. GÖª They want to ensure the information is presented clearly, and honestly. This means they can't go all out explaining ever little detail, especially since not all the details are fully worked out. I'd prefer to know now, get my questions together on what I want to know, give them time to address it, and move on from there. Really, you should be happy you are getting this information now, as opposed to after fanfest (which is the normal timeframe).
I respectfully disagree with your position. CCP *can* go over every little detail, instead they are transparently attempting to whet an appetite. While I agree that they are instituting a major change to a complex part of the game, I am not content to accept what is spoon-fed to me.
I do not believe it is unfair to ask CCP to release a complete blog for us to digest and one to which the community can pose well considered questions. The piecemeal approach taken to this issue unfortunately conforms with the approach CCP uses with patch releases: Rush it out, unfinished and issue daily patches until we get it right" I am merely asking CCP to take their time and give us a full picture in one shot instead of leaving us to wonder.
|
Valterra Craven
189
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:15:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Destiven Mare wrote:I understand CCP's real motivation to release the blogs in segments: to drum up anticipation and interest in an area that is difficult for some players to understand/care about
However, for those of us that both understand and do industry/science on a regular basis and need answers to the dozens of open questions that are raised in parts 1 and 2 in this series of blogs, we are understandably frustrated by the "Hide the ball approach" of "wait until we publish the rest of the story." The cover of "if we do it in one post, then it will be too long" is both flimsy and insulting. The industrial community is not replete with "tl:dr" types.
It is utterly infuriating for CCP to open so many different avenues in one dev blog yet fail to answer the logical questions posed by the playerbase by saying: "just wait, we will tell you later."
Don't treat us like this CCP. We deserve better. A few things you need to consider. GÖª This expansion is many months away. They are giving us time to absorb what is going on. They are giving those attending fanfest time to clarify their needs and questions. They are giving us time to identify issues.
I don't know if we "deserve" better. But that is a topic for a different post.
But I'd like to make one slight note here. Last summer expansion hit around June 6th. While no official date has been given for this one, Its likely they try to hit the same target. That is neither months away or an excuse not to release ALL of the information at one time. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:16:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:What about my WH POS? Will it also miraculously start paying someone? Those would be some pretty adventurous tax collectors.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
773
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:18:00 -
[1015] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Max Kolonko wrote:What about my WH POS? Will it also miraculously start paying someone? Those would be some pretty adventurous tax collectors. if anyone can scare wholers its the revenue/tax man Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf In Doubt....Do....Excessively. Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼
|
Rollo Brinalle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:21:00 -
[1016] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Calorn Marthor wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:About being able to anchor POSes anywhere in high sec: Does that mean the very high security systems will become available? For example, right now you cannot anchor a POS in a 1.0 system. Will that change? Can someone answer this one please? Will we be able to set up towers in 0.8+ sec? You will be able to anchor towers in any system in hi sec, except systems that are restricted, like rookie systems and trade hubs like Jita. This is the same restricted list as the one that applies to POCOs for instance.
Do the POS's still need to be anchored near a moon? or can they be anchored anywhere in space?
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:22:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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. We don't know the price points because details on POS S&I have yet to be released. More risk for more reward is the paradigm CCP mentioned in the blog, and people can chose the level of risk they wish to take. Just because you think having BPO's in a POS is too much risk does not mean everyone else will. I have a research POS with 10 Labs on it today, and had to deal with wardecs of the billion+ POS loot. Learning how to arm your POS will thwart many would-be attackers. Having friends to aid you in times of war goes even farther for securing your assets. Furthermore, the 24hr warning before a war goes active provides a nice window to get your stuff safe. There are many ways you can make POS assets fairly safe, you just have to utilize them. I too used to run a POS. I did T2 invention mfg and cap mfg in high sec and next door in low. Some of your corp members are likely flying in capitals I made for your group, before one of your guys moved on to PL. I had to deal with all the risks that you do today, and am well aware of the risk /reward balance we have today in high / low. But bottom line, this looks more like lower reward / much higher risk is what we are facing. Do you seriously believe that CCP, who at every turn, has nerfed high sec income, is about to give it a buff? At best, costs will remain the same, and risk goes way higher. But yeah, let's peg this conversation until the other shoe drops on costs, and we can see how much high sec industry just got hammered. Because we both know, that just like refining efficiency, the null sec cartels are about to be gifted huge advantages compared to high sec.
Null-sec should have a huge Advantage. Null-sec is CCP's Engame for EVE. When moving out to Riskier grounds where it takes one group of people no notice to ruin a day, It should be risker. Hi-sec is a great starting ground, and a good fallback area when things go wrong. The juicer fruit has always been in Null, and CCP should continue to make it juicier to all groups.
Null Cartels should be given a reason to bring us Industrials Out to Null. The more we have reasons to head out there, The more reasons the PVPs have for combat. Now we besides fighting for Sov, have to protect those feeding us ships. When hi-sec costs skyrocket over changes and the Null cartels realize to keep in business they need us out there, then CCP is making the area positive for ALL groups. That is a plus, Not just have a PVP area, But a endgame area for all. I know in your VAST jack of all trades, Master of everything history you brag to all of us about, must understand this Very very Simple Concept. That or you are screaming just because you are one of those people who like to Argue. I mean you scream about unsubbing and ending characters how often? Yet you are still here... amazing...
Null-sec Is the Endgame, Hi-sec is your Entry Level Job in your future career as an eve player. When will you learn this. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:22:00 -
[1018] - Quote
Rollo Brinalle wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Calorn Marthor wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:About being able to anchor POSes anywhere in high sec: Does that mean the very high security systems will become available? For example, right now you cannot anchor a POS in a 1.0 system. Will that change? Can someone answer this one please? Will we be able to set up towers in 0.8+ sec? You will be able to anchor towers in any system in hi sec, except systems that are restricted, like rookie systems and trade hubs like Jita. This is the same restricted list as the one that applies to POCOs for instance. Do the POS's still need to be anchored near a moon? or can they be anchored anywhere in space?
This was answered earlier by CCP, It is still at a moon, they are just unlocking I think like 13000 more moons in the game for us. |
Rollo Brinalle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:24:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Rollo Brinalle wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Calorn Marthor wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:About being able to anchor POSes anywhere in high sec: Does that mean the very high security systems will become available? For example, right now you cannot anchor a POS in a 1.0 system. Will that change? Can someone answer this one please? Will we be able to set up towers in 0.8+ sec? You will be able to anchor towers in any system in hi sec, except systems that are restricted, like rookie systems and trade hubs like Jita. This is the same restricted list as the one that applies to POCOs for instance. Do the POS's still need to be anchored near a moon? or can they be anchored anywhere in space? This was answered earlier by CCP, It is still at a moon, they are just unlocking I think like 13000 more moons in the game for us.
Cool thanks for the response. I honestly didn't want to read 50 pages of posts and a search didn't show anything. :) |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:25:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Max Kolonko wrote:What about my WH POS? Will it also miraculously start paying someone? Those would be some pretty adventurous tax collectors.
That is one thing I would love to know, WH'ers are in Lawless space, No concord, no empire... Unless suddenly Concord or the navies got brave and start setting up camps into WH's.... Or is WH space suddenly going to have a Advantage to is... POS's being Your own again and with a R&D advantage... This would also drive some beautiful Content in it more then usual. As WH space will become a premium for Industrialists more then they are now. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3861
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:26:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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. We don't know the price points because details on POS S&I have yet to be released. More risk for more reward is the paradigm CCP mentioned in the blog, and people can chose the level of risk they wish to take. Just because you think having BPO's in a POS is too much risk does not mean everyone else will. I have a research POS with 10 Labs on it today, and had to deal with wardecs of the billion+ POS loot. Learning how to arm your POS will thwart many would-be attackers. Having friends to aid you in times of war goes even farther for securing your assets. Furthermore, the 24hr warning before a war goes active provides a nice window to get your stuff safe. There are many ways you can make POS assets fairly safe, you just have to utilize them. I too used to run a POS. I did T2 invention mfg and cap mfg in high sec and next door in low. Some of your corp members are likely flying in capitals I made for your group, before one of your guys moved on to PL. I had to deal with all the risks that you do today, and am well aware of the risk /reward balance we have today in high / low. But bottom line, this looks more like lower reward / much higher risk is what we are facing. Do you seriously believe that CCP, who at every turn, has nerfed high sec income, is about to give it a buff? At best, costs will remain the same, and risk goes way higher. But yeah, let's peg this conversation until the other shoe drops on costs, and we can see how much high sec industry just got hammered. Because we both know, that just like refining efficiency, the null sec cartels are about to be gifted huge advantages compared to high sec.
CCP giveth and taketh away.
Sure, Sov Nullsec might reap some benefits form the industry expansion, making nullsec industry more profitable is generally a GOOD thing. I do my industry in highsec because there is little benefit to doing it in nullsec.
Remember, most industry takes place in highsec, and I doubt industry is going to massively uproot itself and move to nullsec. And also remmeber, a Sov revamp is on the to-do list, so exciting times will be here.
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:26:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Do the POS's still need to be anchored near a moon? or can they be anchored anywhere in space? [/quote]
This was answered earlier by CCP, It is still at a moon, they are just unlocking I think like 13000 more moons in the game for us. [/quote]
Cool thanks for the response. I honestly didn't want to read 50 pages of posts and a search didn't show anything. :)[/quote]
Use the cliffnote system of eve, Dev Post link :P |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3861
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:29:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Do the POS's still need to be anchored near a moon? or can they be anchored anywhere in space?
GÖª This was answered earlier by CCP, It is still at a moon, they are just unlocking I think like 13000 more moons in the game for us.
GÖªGÖª Cool thanks for the response. I honestly didn't want to read 50 pages of posts and a search didn't show anything. :)
GÖªGÖªGÖª Use the cliffnote system of eve, Dev Post link :P
The first post is being updated with CCP dev responses. There's your cliffnotes. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2681
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:29:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
Null sec good, everything else bad drivel.
Wow, just wow. You really don't understand this game, do you? Oh, and BTW, I don't scream about unsubbing. I can't. This is my last account. Has been for years. If I drop this, I won't be able to enjoy the schadenfreude on the forums that is coming for CCP, one day soon. 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 18:33:00 -
[1025] - Quote
We dont know how the "Tax" is going to work as of yet, but I dont' see why people will go out and put up POS's just because they can now.
As of today before patch you can buy a corp for almost nothing that allows you to put up POS's, not everyone is doing it.. Very little difference.
Also if POS's are also part of the system tax, a POS has very little reason to be used other than quicker jobs if the arrays still even have that bonus (Again we don't know those details yet either).
All in all, we need a lot more information.. On top of all these changes you also have the refinery/compression changes coming in, this patch is going to really change everything about production.. I think in the start we will see TONS of people jump on the POS/Industry bandwaggon, but after 2 months that number will drop drasticly, it won't be "new" anymore, and lets face it production is a job, mosst people dont play to work.. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2681
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:35:00 -
[1026] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: CCP giveth and taketh away.
Sure, Sov Nullsec might reap some benefits form the industry expansion, making nullsec industry more profitable is generally a GOOD thing. I do my industry in highsec because there is little benefit to doing it in nullsec.
Remember, most industry takes place in highsec, and I doubt industry is going to massively uproot itself and move to nullsec. And also remmeber, a Sov revamp is on the to-do list, so exciting times will be here.
Let's be clear here. CCP taketh from high sec and giveth to sov null sec. And if you believe that the cartels will let any sov change come through that does not benefit them, well, you know better than that.
When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way. Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency. The only thing that null won't have is the trade hubs, because the majority of the player base is still high sec players.
The CSM and their lackey is trying real hard to change that last demographic. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
73
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:35:00 -
[1027] - Quote
oohthey ioh wrote:Rekkr Nordgard wrote:oohthey ioh wrote:everyone shut the **** up, you lock down your ****** BPO's in station, and make copes in the station then use you BPC in the pos Because adding valueless steps and making industry more complicated is what we wanted in an indy expansion. then take the risk of using the bpo in the pos? the whole piont of the copys is for safe movement + inventing
FFS but to get the BPO to a usable ME and PE it will have to be placed in the POS LAB DIRECTLY sometimes up to a month to simply research 1 ME (BPO dependant) that's before you even get to the BPC stage. |
Radgette
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
63
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:36:00 -
[1028] - Quote
People need to stop saying the following :
Nullsec is the endgame of EVE it's supposed to be better.
EVE is a sandbox all career paths should be equally catered to not just one.
Incentivising Nullsec does not need to come at the expense of Highsec or any other space.
Adding additional costs to POS by some magically tax is daft.
we don't need to hire workers, production is automated and the pos fuel includes the items required to keep things running smoothly so it's not a maintenance tax, it's just a hey we can't think of anything so lets add a tax. really boring game design imo.
I'm holding off on any major crying until the rest of the blogs are released though as it "hopefully" isn't as bad as it currently seems.
Also one last thing, don't get your hopes up for that UI making it into the game, remember PI it looked great and we got an RSI inducing circle clickfest :P |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6980
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:41:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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. i'm quite sure i already knew about the changes when i posted in the thread explaining the changes
i read the devblogs before commenting, you see Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space BORG Alliance
52
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:42:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: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? 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.
Do you understand you are talking about a commodity (ices but also other fuels components) that has ZERO intrinsic ISK value and whose price is exclusively - and rightly - decided by the markets? The markets will judge the best price, no you, not me nor CCP. That's what sets EvE apart. The markets.
Yes but the towers could be changed to use less fuel blocks per hour, cutting current fuel costs down - see what i mean? Costs can still bne influenced by CCP, by causing the towers to need less fuel blocks per hour, than they do now. So they can be compensated or changed. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6980
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:46:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite
so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc
like seriously people use some brains here Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Thead Enco
47th Ronin
155
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:48:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: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. You might be surprised how many quit once the full impact hits. But it will be impossible to tell. Remember, the vast majority of casual players don't even read the forums, let alone the dev blogs. The 1st time they will know about the changes is when this goes live, and they head to their POS on day 1 of the new world. How many individuals actually post and read the forums. I bet CCP could easily count the amount of unique IP's that visited the forums in the past 3 months, and how many accounts were used to post on the forums. Wanna bet it is a tiny fraction of the sub base?
The casual player is as relevent as a crack house in ole Detroit. Furthermore if they are really that butthurt to have to actually login more to play this game then they will not be missed, just means one less competitor I have to worry about. I only say that because "The casual player" has been the death of every MMO I have played since UO, So let them leave, while this game endures on a new horizon they can run "Raids"
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
503
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:50:00 -
[1033] - Quote
As a champion of highsec seeing increased costs via taxes and build fees I'd just like to take this moment to revel in the glory of this thread The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
56
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:52:00 -
[1034] - Quote
AWESOME.
Now can you guys add the atrocious PI interface to the list of industry UI's that need changed? |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
606
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:52:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Radgette wrote:People need to stop saying the following :
Nullsec is the endgame of EVE it's supposed to be better.
EVE is a sandbox all career paths should be equally catered to not just one.
Incentivising Nullsec does not need to come at the expense of Highsec or any other space.
Adding additional costs to POS by some magically tax is daft.
we don't need to hire workers, production is automated and the pos fuel includes the items required to keep things running smoothly so it's not a maintenance tax, it's just a hey we can't think of anything so lets add a tax. really boring game design imo.
I'm holding off on any major crying until the rest of the blogs are released though as it "hopefully" isn't as bad as it currently seems.
Also one last thing, don't get your hopes up for that UI making it into the game, remember PI it looked great and we got an RSI inducing circle clickfest :P
Risk vs Reward has always been the backbone of EVE gameplay (and any other MMO in existance). The safer you are trying to be, the less rewarding your activities will be. The more risk you take, the higher your rewards will be. There is nothing wrong with that and the current changes are all good in my book.
Nullsec isn't an endgame, but it certainly is one of the most rewarding areas of the game. It is up to the player if they want to risk reaping those rewards or not. I live in high sec, enjoy being in high-sec. But I reap the rewards of null-sec on an almost daily basis because I dare to take the risk. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
606
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:53:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Daenika wrote:AWESOME.
Now can you guys add the atrocious PI interface to the list of industry UI's that need changed?
Oh god I hope that's not this expansion, I just spent a week recording a tutorial about PI in it's current form My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
40
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:56:00 -
[1037] - Quote
Proton Power wrote:We dont know how the "Tax" is going to work as of yet, but I dont' see why people will go out and put up POS's just because they can now.
As of today before patch you can buy a corp for almost nothing that allows you to put up POS's, not everyone is doing it.. Very little difference.
Also if POS's are also part of the system tax, a POS has very little reason to be used other than quicker jobs if the arrays still even have that bonus (Again we don't know those details yet either).
All in all, we need a lot more information.. On top of all these changes you also have the refinery/compression changes coming in, this patch is going to really change everything about production.. I think in the start we will see TONS of people jump on the POS/Industry bandwaggon, but after 2 months that number will drop drasticly, it won't be "new" anymore, and lets face it production is a job, mosst people dont play to work..
With the Refining Change you will get better processing at a POS than a hi-sec npc station and you can also be able to create the Compressed Ore at the POS.
The only issue I have with the changes so far is the dropping of the standings to put up Hi-Sec towers. I do not see the need to make this change. There are more pressing issues that need to be change than this mechanic that is working. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
56
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:59:00 -
[1038] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Risk vs Reward has always been the backbone of EVE gameplay (and any other MMO in existance). The safer you are trying to be, the less rewarding your activities will be. The more risk you take, the higher your rewards will be. There is nothing wrong with that and the current changes are all good in my book.
Nullsec isn't an endgame, but it certainly is one of the most rewarding areas of the game. It is up to the player if they want to risk reaping those rewards or not. I live in high sec, enjoy being in high-sec. But I reap the rewards of null-sec on an almost daily basis because I dare to take the risk.
If Risk vs. Reward were valid, WH would be the most profitable and effective area of EVE. Most of nullsec is super-safe blue. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
56
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:59:00 -
[1039] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Daenika wrote:AWESOME.
Now can you guys add the atrocious PI interface to the list of industry UI's that need changed? Oh god I hope that's not this expansion, I just spent a week recording a tutorial about PI in it's current form
Ouch, pity you there. The current interface is freakin terrible... |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:00:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Dalilus wrote:Maybe the players that run eve should take a look across the water and see how the healthcare revamp in the colonies is being received and working out. Huge changes all the time, i attribute it to fear of next year, that alienates everyone is not good. Stop paying attention to the BWAAAAAAmbulance that changes its mind every couple of months about what it wants and start introducing new content that everyone, not only the BWAAAAAmbulance drivers, can participate in and enjoy.
What if one of those players was also working on healthcare.gov as one of the people brought in to fix that too?
Man, that would just be creepy eh? Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
629
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:01:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote: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.
They are dying on the dance floor. They are lying in debris. They are fading with exhaustion from their mortal injuries.
They are hungry and need feeding. They've resigned themselves to fate. They're desperate men. Death's written on their face.
Coming soon... |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6980
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:01:00 -
[1042] - Quote
Daenika wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Risk vs Reward has always been the backbone of EVE gameplay (and any other MMO in existance). The safer you are trying to be, the less rewarding your activities will be. The more risk you take, the higher your rewards will be. There is nothing wrong with that and the current changes are all good in my book.
Nullsec isn't an endgame, but it certainly is one of the most rewarding areas of the game. It is up to the player if they want to risk reaping those rewards or not. I live in high sec, enjoy being in high-sec. But I reap the rewards of null-sec on an almost daily basis because I dare to take the risk. If Risk vs. Reward were valid, WH would be the most profitable and effective area of EVE. Most of nullsec is super-safe blue. its funny how people who can't cut it in 0.0 are always so convinced its so safe and easy Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
40
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:03:00 -
[1043] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc like seriously people use some brains here
Why change the POS modules to have infinite number like the NPC stations? The Arrays have a set powergrid and CPU usage on the Tower. These should not be able to run infinite jobs even at scaling costs. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6980
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:04:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Killian Redbeard wrote: Why change the POS modules to have infinite number like the NPC stations? The Arrays have a set powergrid and CPU usage on the Tower. These should not be able to run infinite jobs even at scaling costs.
because you're abolishing the entire concept of slots so you have the same system everywhere instead of a stupid and archaic system on pos Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
398
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:07:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Getting all bent out of shape about POS stuff is not particularly smart right now.
Barring, of course, the removal of the standings requirement for anchoring POS in highsec. Anyone who disagrees with that is trying to protect their interests at the expense of the whole, and in a particularly hamfisted manner, unlike me and mine. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
41
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:10:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Killian Redbeard wrote: Why change the POS modules to have infinite number like the NPC stations? The Arrays have a set powergrid and CPU usage on the Tower. These should not be able to run infinite jobs even at scaling costs.
because you're abolishing the entire concept of slots so you have the same system everywhere instead of a stupid and archaic system on pos
If we getting rid of slots are we getting rid of the specialized arrays and lab pos modules also? I only need 1 lab for ME/PE/Copying/Inventoion/ RE and I should only need 1 array to manufacturing anything I want since I have infinite jobs available. |
Minerva Arbosa
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:12:00 -
[1047] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Garth of Izar wrote:how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now.
Thanks for inventing another way a person has the potential to steal from a corp. Glad you are creating more environments for griefers to play rather than true industrialists to have better facilities. Also, you all going to re-write the POS code anytime soon, knowing how screwed up that stuff is for permissions? Honestly, I would rather see that going on than you all adding more way for griefers and thieves to harass industrial corporations. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:16:00 -
[1048] - Quote
Minerva Arbosa wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Garth of Izar wrote:how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now. Thanks for inventing another way a person has the potential to steal from a corp. Glad you are creating more environments for griefers to play rather than true industrialists to have better facilities. Also, you all going to re-write the POS code anytime soon, knowing how screwed up that stuff is for permissions? Honestly, I would rather see that going on than you all adding more way for griefers and thieves to harass industrial corporations.
Make an alt corp, Drop your POS, give only permissions to yourself for it, No having to worry about Awoxers. This is one area that One member Corps come in handy.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1011
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:17:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:However people should still keep in mind that any changes to copy times will benefit the inventor far, far more than the T2 BPO owner. This is not true. Copying is not the invention bottleneck. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:20:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc like seriously people use some brains here
You are also working on speculation. My concerns are completely justified. Stop being a pandering troll. Every post you have made has been nonstop white knighting all the changes that have been brought up, without even any seeming glimpse of concern for the community or the larger game at all. We have zero idea about how they are doing the scaling, because they haven't posted it yet. If I have to pay a base 1k install +333isk/hour fee at a POS that then scales up from there, then I no longer have any reason to use a POS at all. If YOU used your brain instead of living in some small utopia, you would see that the only base cost established in the game is the one I just mentioned. Furthermore, the way that the devs have presented their seeming hatred for POS production and industry based on the changes they have presented, it would seem to me that my fears are not ungrounded. |
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
141
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:20:00 -
[1051] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:However people should still keep in mind that any changes to copy times will benefit the inventor far, far more than the T2 BPO owner. This is not true. Copying is not the invention bottleneck. Why do people comment with no experience. It all depends on the item what the bottleneck is. With certain items copying is the bottleneck, although for a lot of items it is invention or manufacturing which is the bottleneck. |
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
41
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:22:00 -
[1052] - Quote
Minerva Arbosa wrote: Thanks for inventing another way a person has the potential to steal from a corp. Glad you are creating more environments for griefers to play rather than true industrialists to have better facilities. Also, you all going to re-write the POS code anytime soon, knowing how screwed up that stuff is for permissions? Honestly, I would rather see that going on than you all adding more way for griefers and thieves to harass industrial corporations.
If you do all the researching, copying and invention at the NPC station you never have to put the BPO at the POS. You can just use the POS for Manufacturing and Refining. |
Circumstantial Evidence
111
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:24:00 -
[1053] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way. Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency.
Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... "inspire" battles and market demand for all the stuff we can make and sell. If players are not up to the very hard job of organizing a force to unseat an existing nullsec power, some decide its worth paying a "rental fee" to a sov-holder for access to that better stuff. Null is where the "end game" content is. You can't play SuperCaps Online(tm) in highsec. |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
87
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:29:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Minerva Arbosa wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Garth of Izar wrote:how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now. Thanks for inventing another way a person has the potential to steal from a corp. Glad you are creating more environments for griefers to play rather than true industrialists to have better facilities. Also, you all going to re-write the POS code anytime soon, knowing how screwed up that stuff is for permissions? Honestly, I would rather see that going on than you all adding more way for griefers and thieves to harass industrial corporations.
I'm sure you'd love to get a war dec the moment a spy within your corp notices that you've completed a lockdown vote on that juicy BPO at the POS. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2682
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:31:00 -
[1055] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way. Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency.
Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... "inspire" battles and market demand for all the stuff we can make and sell. If players are not up to the very hard job of organizing a force to unseat an existing nullsec power, some decide its worth paying a "rental fee" to a sov-holder for access to that better stuff. Null is where the "end game" content is. You can't play SuperCaps Online(tm) in highsec.
Wrong. One of the dev's, I can't remember now, likely one of the ones let go, said quite explicitly that Eve was NEVER about enshrining a system where one area of the game was completely independent of another.
With these changes, and the coming dev blogs, null sec will have zero use for high sec, other than for griefing targets. As I said, the only thing null sec will lack is the critical mass of players to actually build decent trade hubs, and the CSM has clearly designed these changes with that very thought in mind, and doing everything possible to drive as many people as possible into the loving arms of the null sec cartels. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6980
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:39:00 -
[1056] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote: You are also working on speculation. My concerns are completely justified. Stop being a pandering troll. Every post you have made has been nonstop white knighting all the changes that have been brought up, without even any seeming glimpse of concern for the community or the larger game at all. We have zero idea about how they are doing the scaling, because they haven't posted it yet. If I have to pay a base 1k install +333isk/hour fee at a POS that then scales up from there, then I no longer have any reason to use a POS at all. If YOU used your brain instead of living in some small utopia, you would see that the only base cost established in the game is the one I just mentioned. Furthermore, the way that the devs have presented their seeming hatred for POS production and industry based on the changes they have presented, it would seem to me that my fears are not ungrounded.
my speculation is based on incredibly solid incredibly simple inferences while yours is based on complete crazy
if you actually think that 1k install +333 isk /hour (which, assuming that you installed ten jobs a day (a crazy number) and used the pos nonstop and used ten slots per build character, you would have a total tax of 5.3m per build character per month, or "like an eighth of normal fuel price variation per month" is enough that you'd have no reason to use a pos, you're nuts
if that is enough to make you flee a manufacturing cost you're so bad at industry that your opinion should not be considered one bit in this discussion Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6980
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:42:00 -
[1057] - Quote
i have an idea about how they're doing the scaling: the way that is incredibly obvious and makes sense instead of wigging out that CLEARLY THE DEVS HATE POS SO ITS GOING TO BE AS BAD AS POSSIBLE Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Daggaroth
Interstellar Waffle Conglomerate Waffle Batter Trade Consortium
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:43:00 -
[1058] - Quote
A question for clarification:
the scaling costs to build things in the same system? will that only be manufacturing costs? I.E if it costs 1,000,000 ISK to put something into a manufacturing slot, when it hits the max scale it will cost. 1,140,000 ? or will it scale by 14% each time after a certain point to where if you are manufacturing at your limit you could be spending 10 + million? or will the cost of the actual item determine the cost? so if you are building a capital ship that costs 1 billion ISK, will the build cost be 140,000,000 ISK?
Comment on this aspect:
I am quite concerned that this is going to kill the capital ship manufacturing aspects for anyone but large alliances. As it stands, it is quite difficult to make even a 10% profit margin building capital ships when purchasing resources off empire markets. if capital ships are going to cost 9 digits to build , not even counting the costs of materials, and transportation of resources into dangerous space, they will become quite difficult, if not impossible, to make a profit on for anyone but people in large alliances who have access to quieter systems and reduced costs minerals.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1011
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:46:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc like seriously people use some brains here Have fuel use scale with active slots. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Minerva Arbosa
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:51:00 -
[1060] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this? We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station.
Yes, but now you are forcing those of us who have particularly liked building a POS in remote systems where there was no research station to pick up and move all of our blueprints to some random research station, and pay for slots rather than us paying for fuel blocks every month? I would rather pay my 400m / mo. in fuel blocks, and be able to remotely research my BPOs at the POS even though it can take a long time to do it, than have to find a research station near me, then unlock all my blueprints, transport them through lowsec and highsec, then re-lock down all of my BPOs, then pay for researching them all. It just doesn't make any sense why this was being changed in the first place. |
|
SoHo White
Etoilles Mortant Ltd. Solyaris Chtonium
24
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:54:00 -
[1061] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this? We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station.
I think I may just stop industry, after doing it fot the last 8 years. CCP you are moving the goalposts too far.
I'm all for updating Industry, some of the changes you are proposing are well thought out, others need more work and a few just need to be binned !
You are up to 50+ pages of comments on this one topic in just over a day. Are we all singing and dancing and saying how wonderful the changes are ? Perhaps you need a better consultation period when thinking about changes to the game, at the moment too many of these comments (I have read all 50+ pages, have you ?) are not happy with what you are proposing.
If you had previous asked me (you didn't), I would have made these 2 comments
- Continue to allow locked BPO's to be used from stations, perhaps adding a charge for the privilege.
- The POS interface/management should be updated prior to industry changes, the interface is too cumbersome to cope with the added complexity you are suggesting with these industry changes.
|
FREELANCER JUNI
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:55:00 -
[1062] - Quote
CCP - Are you short on cash ? ,, did Dusk fail so badly you need to sting us all again ? How is Valkyrie coming on ?
All i see is CCP trying to sting Eve Players as much as possible -
Blueprints can't be locked down anymore ? These changes just encourage corp theft and more solo play, - social game ?
Painted ships - failed , Did you really pay someone wages for the new paint jobs ? Charging to have high quality stream of fanfest ? - you tight *******
Really what next pay-per login
shame on you CCP
A programmerGÇÖs wife sends him to the grocery store with the instructions, GÇ£get a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs, get a dozen.GÇ¥ He comes home with a dozen loaf of bread and tells her, GÇ£they had eggs.GÇ¥ |
Varesk
Carried Hate
540
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:57:00 -
[1063] - Quote
FREELANCER JUNI wrote:CCP - Are you short on cash ? ,, did Dusk fail so badly you need to sting us all again ? How is Valkyrie coming on ?
All i see is CCP trying to sting Eve Players as much as possible -
Blueprints can't be locked down anymore ? These changes just encourage corp theft and more solo play, - social game ?
Painted ships - failed , Did you really pay someone wages for the new paint jobs ? Charging to have high quality stream of fanfest ? - you tight *******
Really what next pay-per login
shame on you CCP
plex for hd stream has been around for a while.
you already pay to log in.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1106
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:58:00 -
[1064] - Quote
SoHo White wrote: The POS interface/management should be updated prior to industry changes, the interface is too cumbersome to cope with the added complexity you are suggesting with these industry changes.
the next blog in the like is about the changes to the industry UI with will becoming alongside this. As such until we see that blog it's kinda pointless to complain. what we do know is that it will be changing so any complaint based on it's current form will likely be irrelevant.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2683
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 19:58:00 -
[1065] - Quote
Minerva Arbosa wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this? We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. Yes, but now you are forcing those of us who have particularly liked building a POS in remote systems where there was no research station to pick up and move all of our blueprints to some random research station, and pay for slots rather than us paying for fuel blocks every month? I would rather pay my 400m / mo. in fuel blocks, and be able to remotely research my BPOs at the POS even though it can take a long time to do it, than have to find a research station near me, then unlock all my blueprints, transport them through lowsec and highsec, then re-lock down all of my BPOs, then pay for researching them all. It just doesn't make any sense why this was being changed in the first place.
Yup, like I said.
You can choose to paint a huge bullseye on your corp by having research mods on your POS, and STILL pay more than you today, or you can uproot everything, set up shop like everyone else in a system with infinite research slots, and pay a huge huge premium on that.
Awesome choices, just awesome. I am sure that fully vertically integrated industrial corps that mined, invented, and built all within the same system, or at most a 2 system jump, will be absolutely thrilled with these changes. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1106
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:03:00 -
[1066] - Quote
FREELANCER JUNI wrote:Painted ships - failed , Did you really pay someone wages for the new paint jobs ? Honest question, by what criteria are you judging this? What is your threshold of success for the trial and what data are you using to judge it a failure?
FREELANCER JUNI wrote:Charging to have high quality stream of fanfest ? - you tight ******* Are you new and bought that character or have you just not been paying attention to FF HD stream offerings over the years? |
industrial foreman
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:04:00 -
[1067] - Quote
What are the chances everyone says F it and just builds in Jita 4-4 and pushes the 14% cost onto the items? |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1011
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:07:00 -
[1068] - Quote
industrial foreman wrote:What are the chances everyone says F it and just builds in Jita 4-4 and pushes the 14% cost onto the items? Zero. Because not everyone is that stupid and the intelligent producers will immediately and savagely undercut the unintelligent ones. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
135
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:08:00 -
[1069] - Quote
How will extra materials be worked in if they are not a normal part of the required materials? An example would be cloaks, they now require a Hermetic Membrane as an extra material but not as part of their regular materials. How will the extra cost of the PI material "Hermetic Membrane" be worked in to the regular cost which only consists of standard minerals?
|
Atlantis Fuanan
Uncharted Skies Cerberus Unleashed
74
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:11:00 -
[1070] - Quote
I love it so far! Clearly shakes up Industry and probably this will shake up everything in this universe. :D Things that would make EVE better: NRDS - Remove Local - Balance Cloak - Sov-Mechanic Changes - Less QQ |
|
Ming The Merciless
Orbital Reclamation Services
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:12:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Quote:You can choose to paint a huge bullseye on your corp by having research mods on your POS, and STILL pay more than you today, or you can uproot everything, set up shop like everyone else in a system with infinite research slots, and pay a huge huge premium on that.
Your assuming you can find a station that has a corp office slot free in a system even in the same region you are in. For example there are only 32 stations out of 432 stations in the Metropolis region that even have copy/ME/PE research slots. Many of them close to full and will be full when and if this change goes thru as planned.
Even if they added copy/me/pe research slots to all stations gone would be the day that any corporation with a corp office and a free moon in the system would be able to spend Isk/effort/risk and put up their own POS to make up for the lack of NPC/CCP provided services and have better services at their disposal.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting something or need to wait for further info but nobody has pointed it out on my post 15 pages ago. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1106
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:13:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Volar Kang wrote:How will extra materials be worked in if they are not a normal part of the required materials? An example would be cloaks, they now require a Hermetic Membrane as an extra material but not as part of their regular materials. How will the extra cost of the PI material "Hermetic Membrane" be worked in to the regular cost which only consists of standard minerals?
Ok, I seriously don't understand this question. Why would they not be moved over as is (after applying skills for efficiency and such)? |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
149
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:19:00 -
[1073] - Quote
No slots means a new system which we know extremely little about. I am sure that CCP will answer all of these in time (no need to bother answering anything here yet). Still there appear to be certain assumptions about how the remaining systems will be structured based on how they currently work. Assumptions can make fools of everyone and CCP comes up with innovative solutions.
Will congestion charges be based on specific locals (station, POS), system, other region (all of null sec), or other information (standings)?
Will there be any other congestion effects (increased time)?
Will other things delay production of an installed job? The industry window mock up has what appears to be an active job with an hour glass on it.
What are the effects of installing a job with insufficient materials (there at beginning, when item completed)? The industry window mock up shows a blue print which can apparently only be run four times, and seems to be currently running.
Will increased industry efficiency require multiple accounts (or sharing your BPOs with "friends")? After all "more people should have advantages over an individual" producer.
What does base item cost actually mean (for the 0-14% formula), particularly for research, copying, invention (14% fees to invent)?
Will there be a gimmicky whole in the cost calculation which will allow a large alliance to reduce cost for it's doctrine ships?
Will high sec stations have stats which modify production (POSes and Outposts will)?
What stats could be modified (time, efficiency, cost)?
Will the various outposts really be balanced? We know a maxed Minmatar station will have 20% mineral efficiency over high sec stations. Why go through the effort of moving those materials when your max production cost is only 14% of the end cost?
Who will get the leaked information and maximize their own wealth?
What sort of holes will exist for individuals to exploit innocently use to play the game the way CCP intended? |
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
135
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:21:00 -
[1074] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Volar Kang wrote:How will extra materials be worked in if they are not a normal part of the required materials? An example would be cloaks, they now require a Hermetic Membrane as an extra material but not as part of their regular materials. How will the extra cost of the PI material "Hermetic Membrane" be worked in to the regular cost which only consists of standard minerals?
Ok, I seriously don't understand this question. Why would they not be moved over as is (after applying skills for efficiency and such)?
Maybe they will, they just have not said. Their only example was with a apples to apples comparison. Maybe they will remove things like PI that were added and not part of the normal build requirements. |
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC No Safe Haven
51
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:24:00 -
[1075] - Quote
I love the UI so much, not just that tho The happiest day of all. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1106
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:25:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Volar Kang wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Volar Kang wrote:How will extra materials be worked in if they are not a normal part of the required materials? An example would be cloaks, they now require a Hermetic Membrane as an extra material but not as part of their regular materials. How will the extra cost of the PI material "Hermetic Membrane" be worked in to the regular cost which only consists of standard minerals?
Ok, I seriously don't understand this question. Why would they not be moved over as is (after applying skills for efficiency and such)? Maybe they will, they just have not said. Their only example was with a apples to apples comparison. Maybe they will remove things like PI that were added and not part of the normal build requirements. "As such, all materials currently listed as Extra Materials will become regular materials instead" states all materials, not just minerals or PI components, so I'm not seeing why it would be reasonable to assume the 2 would be segregated or treated differently. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1152
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:25:00 -
[1077] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
7. Use of profanity is prohibited.
The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.
26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.
30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties. Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2685
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:26:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Ming The Merciless wrote:Quote:You can choose to paint a huge bullseye on your corp by having research mods on your POS, and STILL pay more than you today, or you can uproot everything, set up shop like everyone else in a system with infinite research slots, and pay a huge huge premium on that. Your assuming you can find a station that has a corp office slot free in a system even in the same region you are in. For example there are only 32 stations out of 432 stations in the Metropolis region that even have copy/ME/PE research slots. Many of them close to full and will be full when and if this change goes thru as planned. Even if they added copy/me/pe research slots to all stations gone would be the day that any corporation with a corp office and a free moon in the system would be able to spend Isk/effort/risk and put up their own POS to make up for the lack of NPC/CCP provided services and have better services at their disposal. Maybe I'm misinterpreting something or need to wait for further info but nobody has pointed it out on my post 15 pages ago.
I have not seen any comments from the dev's or the null sec cartel mouthpieces to say you are incorrect. Further, a lot of those copy slots are in low sec. I use a couple stations smack dab in FW areas. And when this is all done, people will be faced with high sec war dec's for their BPO's, or facing a ton of campers on gates trying to nail people heading back to "safe" high sec with BPC's. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1012
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:28:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Dinsdale, isn't it just possible (however unlikely) that CCP might be trying to end up with viable industry in all parts of space? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6981
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:29:00 -
[1080] - Quote
Ming The Merciless wrote: Your assuming you can find a station that has a corp office slot free in a system even in the same region you are in. For example there are only 32 stations out of 432 stations in the Metropolis region that even have copy/ME/PE research slots. Many of them close to full and will be full when and if this change goes thru as planned.
you'd have to have quite a lot of research going on to fill up infinite slots Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
74
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:29:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Killian Redbeard wrote: Why change the POS modules to have infinite number like the NPC stations? The Arrays have a set powergrid and CPU usage on the Tower. These should not be able to run infinite jobs even at scaling costs.
because you're abolishing the entire concept of slots so you have the same system everywhere instead of a stupid and archaic system on pos A POS i.e. a Tower currently, is stupid i.e. poor almost to the point of senile AI and archaic basically for the simple reason being CCP have never updated them effectively and efficiently to keep pace with the rest of the game mechanics they have unleashed or modified the only update they received was the fuel blocks idea because the newbies couldn't get to grips with efficient use of the items we used before(so it was dumbed down) it seems as more newer players come on board the more babyish the mods become, soon no one will have to use his/her brain to play any more there will be less and less personal initiative and skill needed at doing things better than someone else. What happens in RL is our the ability to work out something most take as is, so you discover a tweak and work out for yourself how to work it better for yourself. It is becoming all to bland, sandbox pah! more like "Toy" box. a simple example was POS fuel prior to (fuel blocks), a canny POS owner could if he chose too, might, chance off lining certain modules or two to save on the Liq Oz and Heavy Water usages, That meant Taking Risk, a chance but could help balance your books on POS costs at certain times, that to me was an element in EVE that was good, your POS may have been at risk more but that did meet with Risk vs Gain concepts. That kind of Risk/chance taking took "balls" to do it, but it could be done if you needed to, now we have std fuel blocks, flat costs, flat choices lost risk taking for gain, lost initiative to the individual poorer quality game mechanics. and that is only one example. |
Oxide Ammar
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:30:00 -
[1082] - Quote
CCP is going to overhaul the POS arrays? too many arrays to handle in one POS especially if we want to manufacture in POS after expansion. Can CCp look into squeezing this list of arrays or rework the CPU/PG of towers especially the caldari ones.. it's like go caldari tower in hisec or gtfo. |
ST Mahan
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:35:00 -
[1083] - Quote
As this sinks in I can say that I'm finding more to like about the upcoming changes. At the very least it is good to see this game play area get a significant amount of work.
Only concern will be to see the changes made to Cap BPC's with regards to time to copy & number of runs.
Eagerly awaiting the upcoming Dev Blogs; and already making a few new moves in game to prep for changes. :) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
399
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:35:00 -
[1084] - Quote
D'Kelle wrote:Weaselior wrote:Killian Redbeard wrote: Why change the POS modules to have infinite number like the NPC stations? The Arrays have a set powergrid and CPU usage on the Tower. These should not be able to run infinite jobs even at scaling costs.
because you're abolishing the entire concept of slots so you have the same system everywhere instead of a stupid and archaic system on pos A POS i.e. a Tower currently, is stupid i.e. poor almost to the point of senile AI and archaic basically for the simple reason being CCP have never updated them effectively and efficiently to keep pace with the rest of the game mechanics they have unleashed or modified the only update they received was the fuel blocks idea because the newbies couldn't get to grips with efficient use of the items we used before(so it was dumbed down) it seems as more newer players come on board the more babyish the mods become, soon no one will have to use his/her brain to play any more there will be less and less personal initiative and skill needed at doing things better than someone else. What happens in RL is our the ability to work out something most take as is, so you discover a tweak and work out for yourself how to work it better for yourself. It is becoming all to bland, sandbox pah! more like "Toy" box. a simple example was POS fuel prior to (fuel blocks), a canny POS owner could if he chose too, might, chance off lining certain modules or two to save on the Liq Oz and Heavy Water usages, That meant Taking Risk, a chance but could help balance your books on POS costs at certain times, that to me was an element in EVE that was good, your POS may have been at risk more but that did meet with Risk vs Gain concepts. That kind of Risk/chance taking took "balls" to do it, but it could be done if you needed to, now we have std fuel blocks, flat costs, flat choices lost risk taking for gain, lost initiative to the individual poorer quality game mechanics. and that is only one example. Are you SERIOUSLY defending the old pos fuel system? How could you POSSIBLY think that the old system is better? You are certifiably insane. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
399
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:40:00 -
[1085] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Weaselior wrote:Ming The Merciless wrote: Your assuming you can find a station that has a corp office slot free in a system even in the same region you are in. For example there are only 32 stations out of 432 stations in the Metropolis region that even have copy/ME/PE research slots. Many of them close to full and will be full when and if this change goes thru as planned.
you'd have to have quite a lot of research going on to fill up infinite slots I believe he means corp offices. Fortunately, corp offices are not strictly necessary to do research. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Jingo Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:42:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Common guys! Don't lie to us and don't lie to yourself! All you want is JUST MAKE US TO BUY PLEX FOR REAL MONEY! Thats all. Just say it fair!
You want to make ships UNIQUE! When player fear to lose his ship! |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
36
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:42:00 -
[1087] - Quote
I'll post it again, because CCP seems to be ignoring this fact.
Office rent in the few select research stations is going to increase astronomically. It isn't so much risk/reward at this point, more of a matter of logistics. Any corporation with a lot of bpo's that currently most of their members can randomly research/copy will need an office in said stations to keep their BPO's in any remotely organized fashion.
Its either that or have all of the bpo's spread across numerous pilots hangers which then have to be micro managed in order to do the same thing. (even worse functionality than trying to use a POS for corp research after this patch)
I see that within a few months of this, the Office rent in those stations will easily justify the fuel to have a POS instead. But with a POS comes the insane headache that will be constantly moving all of the items between which hangers/labs/arrays they will be used in.
Maybe this will work once you fix POS's to be a mini-station with central storage, but until then, imho, this move is going backwards.
And CCP so please tell me that i'll be able to view more than 10 (or so) blueprints at the same time while searching ALL LOCATIONS EVERWHERE! It looks as if the base 'building' section of that screen is a set size, likely meaning that it will be next to impossible to adjust the size of the window that scrolls through blueprints, thus making it a PITA. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6982
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:43:00 -
[1088] - Quote
Ming The Merciless wrote:Weaselior wrote:Ming The Merciless wrote: Your assuming you can find a station that has a corp office slot free in a system even in the same region you are in. For example there are only 32 stations out of 432 stations in the Metropolis region that even have copy/ME/PE research slots. Many of them close to full and will be full when and if this change goes thru as planned.
you'd have to have quite a lot of research going on to fill up infinite slots Do you maybe not know how highsec research POS's work? You have to rent an office(of which they are limited - only 24 in each NPC station) and have a moon/POS setup. If I didn't have a POS and were only going to research blueprints in a station(that had the slots) you still have to own a corp office to store the blueprints in(so you can share them with your corp). You might not get grok that part because out in sov null you already own all your outposts and approve who can rent there and if you need the slots you just kick people out. Maybe working like a highsec indy corp/team isn't something you do a lot of. they work this way because you currently need an office to use a research pos because a research pos is the only way to get research done, and you need the office to do it safely
post-patch you don't need to have research corps doing all research because it is possible again for individuals to research, so 95% of research corps are obsolete and the ones that want to be a research corp and use a pos no longer need an office Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
399
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:43:00 -
[1089] - Quote
Jingo Aulmais wrote:Common guys! Don't lie to us and don't lie to yourself! All you want is JUST MAKE US TO BUY PLEX FOR REAL MONEY! Thats all. Just say it fair!
You want to make ships UNIQUE! When player fear to lose his ship! PLEX are already purchased with real money. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6982
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:44:00 -
[1090] - Quote
basically research corps are a thing to get around a current problem that is being removed and will no longer be needed so who gives a damn, you want to securely research you just do the research on your alt Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
Jingo Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:50:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Querns wrote:Jingo Aulmais wrote:Common guys! Don't lie to us and don't lie to yourself! All you want is JUST MAKE US TO BUY PLEX FOR REAL MONEY! Thats all. Just say it fair!
You want to make ships UNIQUE! When player fear to lose his ship! PLEX are already purchased with real money.
Yes they want make us use this sh..t mush more! |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
399
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:51:00 -
[1092] - Quote
Jingo Aulmais wrote:Querns wrote:Jingo Aulmais wrote:Common guys! Don't lie to us and don't lie to yourself! All you want is JUST MAKE US TO BUY PLEX FOR REAL MONEY! Thats all. Just say it fair!
You want to make ships UNIQUE! When player fear to lose his ship! PLEX are already purchased with real money. Yes they want make us use this sh..t mush more! Uh, yes. They are a corporation. They exist to make money. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1108
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:53:00 -
[1093] - Quote
Querns wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Weaselior wrote:Ming The Merciless wrote: Your assuming you can find a station that has a corp office slot free in a system even in the same region you are in. For example there are only 32 stations out of 432 stations in the Metropolis region that even have copy/ME/PE research slots. Many of them close to full and will be full when and if this change goes thru as planned.
you'd have to have quite a lot of research going on to fill up infinite slots I believe he means corp offices. Fortunately, corp offices are not strictly necessary to do research. Strictly, no. but assuming he's referring to a situation where it's preferential, and in that case it's for all intents and purposes relevant. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6982
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:54:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Jingo Aulmais wrote:Querns wrote:Jingo Aulmais wrote:Common guys! Don't lie to us and don't lie to yourself! All you want is JUST MAKE US TO BUY PLEX FOR REAL MONEY! Thats all. Just say it fair!
You want to make ships UNIQUE! When player fear to lose his ship! PLEX are already purchased with real money. Yes they want make us use this sh..t mush more! what part of this makes you need to purchase plex for irl dollars
also you know that you purchasing plex for irl dollars just means you're paying for my subscription instead of me, not extra money for ccp right Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1108
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:55:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Querns wrote:Jingo Aulmais wrote:Querns wrote:Jingo Aulmais wrote:Common guys! Don't lie to us and don't lie to yourself! All you want is JUST MAKE US TO BUY PLEX FOR REAL MONEY! Thats all. Just say it fair!
You want to make ships UNIQUE! When player fear to lose his ship! PLEX are already purchased with real money. Yes they want make us use this sh..t mush more! Uh, yes. They are a corporation. They exist to make money. Yet at the same time I'm not seeing how that is the case here. The market will gladly bear the new realities of manufacturing and the only people who will suffer are isk earners from PvE isk faucets long term IF proces spike due to this, which IMHO isn't a given. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
399
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:56:00 -
[1096] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Querns wrote: Fortunately, corp offices are not strictly necessary to do research.
Strictly, no. but assuming he's referring to a situation where it's preferential, and in that case it's for all intents and purposes relevant. It would be preferential for me to be able to afk a freighter through nullsec to deliver precious raw materials to my farms, but unfortunately, there are bubbles and shooty mans.
This does not give me the foothold to demand insta-align, interdiction nullified freighters. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Nightshade Mary
Sarz'na Khumatari The Unthinkables
33
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:58:00 -
[1097] - Quote
Please correct me if I am wrong, for a pure research POS;
* for a cheap BPO, people might use a POS to research and copy. * for an expensive BPO, people will likely swallow the increased cost of station copying and research to keep it safe. * for invention, apart from moving a BPC to a POS, nothing much will change, the output is already there anyway.
For a production POS;
* for a cheap BPO, as above, could be built at at POS. * for an expensive BPO, likely a BPC will be used to build. Basically an ISK and time sink (provided the BPC is made at a station.)
Don't know what to think of that to be honest. We might actually end up with less starbases.
It will be interesting to observe what the above will mean for the market prices. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6982
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 20:58:00 -
[1098] - Quote
the situations where you need to let your corpmates copy your bpo but won't let them touch it are so few and far between that there will not actually be competition for research offices
people just haven't realized that you don't need research corporations anymore: individuals will do their own research and industrial corps will lock their bpos in factories for building Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1108
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:00:00 -
[1099] - Quote
Querns wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Querns wrote: Fortunately, corp offices are not strictly necessary to do research.
Strictly, no. but assuming he's referring to a situation where it's preferential, and in that case it's for all intents and purposes relevant. It would be preferential for me to be able to afk a freighter through nullsec to deliver precious raw materials to my farms, but unfortunately, there are bubbles and shooty mans. This does not give me the foothold to demand insta-align, interdiction nullified freighters. No, but at the same time you do an excellent job creating a comparison out of 2 completely differently scaled situations. Honestly the issue would be self solving if the same or similar system being applied to industry slots was also applied to corp offices. Instant freighter alignment on the other hand goes about breaking things.
If you don't kneejerk and assume every issue has the options of "do nothing" or "give everything for free" and nothing ion between this becomes more productive. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6982
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:01:00 -
[1100] - Quote
trust me our problem with office limits is far worse than yours, we would happily agree to infinite offices for all stations and outposts Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1108
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:03:00 -
[1101] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:trust me our problem with office limits is far worse than yours, we would happily agree to infinite offices for all stations and outposts Seems like a win/win scenario then. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
399
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:05:00 -
[1102] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:trust me our problem with office limits is far worse than yours, we would happily agree to infinite offices for all stations and outposts That would basically be the best. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
53
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:07:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Exacly,
Say goodbai high sec industry,
Welcome 20 man nestorfleets sweeping & collecting the sweet dropping bpo's & tears.
Welcome T1 & T2 price increase for 20% |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:10:00 -
[1104] - Quote
Adellle Nadair wrote:Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. This is the worst single idea I have ever seen from a dev. DO NOT DO THIS CHANGE!!!!!!!!!! We already risk a large amount of isk in just having the labs/datacores/decryptors and all of the copies needed out at a pos. Forcing us to either risk a huge amount more than that, or move the bpos to other much more populated stations that are already overpopulated (that don't have corp offices available or available for anywhere near a reasonable price) and incur a high cost that will greatly reduce production profit or negate it all together, is a horrible change. You as devs do not understand the amount of bpos required to make copies for t2 invention. And you clearly don't understand the organization and the necessity of being able to efficiently access bpos and the time commitment that industry already takes. It is incredibly shortsighted and ignorant of you to assume that it is only a slight amount of isk that we will be risking. We use and need easy access to hundreds of bpos to make the copies we need to be able to do invention. Asking us to risk multiple billions in bpos is insane. And no, I know I don't have to keep all of the bpos I am not using at the pos. However, the addition of moving around the needed bpos from the station to the pos adds an additional step and organizational nightmare to an already complicated system. Because of the nature of industry NOTHING you do with the UI and other new features will change this. This change will also create an additional hassle organizational nightmare for players who need to find or move bpos around. Industry is already complicated enough without having to deal with moving all of the bpos around. DO NOT take away our ability to organize bpos in one central station corp office so multiple characters can easily have access to them and can quickly and efficiently install jobs. DO NOT make us do more work and take more time to do industry jobs. Another severely overlooked issue that this creates: This removes the ability of safely sharing bpos by locking them down in corp hanger in a station. BPOs can't be locked down at a pos. This change will limit how and where we can play severely. It forces people who want to play together to use certain systems and certain stations, to pay for spots at those stations and it practically makes setting up a pos a waste of time and effort, because it limits its usefulness. In the culture of eve (griefers/corp thieves/all) this change removes several much needed elements of safety that allow us to enjoy playing and interacting with a larger player base. If you have decided to do this, as is suggested by other statements in this dev blog, because you haven't worked out how to deal how the slot change affects pos mods, then DO NOT make this change until you come up with a better solution. Because this is NOT the way to make this change happen. POSes are expensive, take time, effort and a good amount of isk to maintain already. Forcing us to risk a considerable amount more and in doing so increase the amount of busy work that is required for doing industry is not a good change. I personally have been playing Eve for 5 and a half years. Industry is one part of the game that I greatly enjoy doing. If this change does go through I will have to seriously consider if it is worth it to keep paying for my 4 accounts. Many of my friends who like this element of the game are already talking about leaving because of this. I sincerely hope that you will not go through with this change and that the other forthcoming industry changes are much more intelligently and thoughtfully crafted than this. If not, you will be losing a large group of your paying customers.
I and my 6 accounts agree 100% with this sentiment, admittedly the picture is incomplete but I can't envision any change that would increase the benefit sufficiently for me to risk my multi billion isk BPO library.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2689
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:12:00 -
[1105] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Dinsdale, isn't it just possible (however unlikely) that CCP might be trying to end up with viable industry in all parts of space?
By giving null sec the same amount of infinte slots as high sec, that was the final leveling of the playing field. I never had a problem with null, or wh space, getting 100% refine, or a huge bump in available research / mfg slots.
I do have huge problems with the fact that it will now cost more, with a huge increase in risk, for high sec players, while we KNOW that null sec will be given huge advantages, just like they got with refining efficiency, that high sec can't compete with.
The only reason there is no "viable" null sec industry, outside of the HUGE supercap industry, is that the sov null sec players can make so much more ISK doing other things. Now, if the null sec cartel mouthpieces are to be believed, all their high sec mfg alts will be incentivized to head back to null and build right there, since there are big bonuses for doing so, and they can make good coin. Also, if the CSM gets its way, eventually enough people will be economically forced to move to null sec and null sec trade hubs may emerge.
Of course, the typical null sec line member will be paying a slot tax (as I predicted many months ago) directly to the station owners aka the cartel leaders. And in the meantime, the true high sec industrialists will be in very dire straits, as any null sec industrialist can for example, fill his jf with 100,000 DC II's and flood Jita with them at no price that no high sec player can match. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Marsha Mallow
237
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:17:00 -
[1106] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:people just haven't realized that you don't need research corporations anymore: individuals will do their own research and industrial corps will lock their bpos in factories for building ^ True that. In some ways this allows more collaboration as people can merge industrial corps together and still retain private control of their BPs in personal hangars. Even if there isn't a major overhaul to roles members with starbase roles can still lock people out of their personal towers (other than dir/ceo etc). Provided they are only putting relatively cheap prints into their towers it isn't a massive deal anyway.
Mr LaboratoryRat wrote:Exacly,
Say goodbai high sec industry,
Welcome 20 man nestorfleets sweeping & collecting the sweet dropping bpo's & tears.
Welcome T1 & T2 price increase for 20% You could see it as "hello industry which isn't artificially confined to highsec"? Dunno about anyone else, but 20% increase in prices doesn't bother me in the slightest :P
Not sure why anyone thinks industry should exist in an artificial bubble of protection - you're not building/researching stuff for free, you do make money out of it. - |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
387
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:27:00 -
[1107] - Quote
Mr LaboratoryRat wrote:Exacly, Say goodbai high sec industry, Welcome 20 man nestorfleets sweeping & collecting the sweet dropping bpo's & tears. Welcome T1 & T2 price increase for 20% Not quite.
I doubt that the majority of high-sec industrialists are going to load up the POSes with billions of ISK of BPOs. Any POS with a lab is going to be an automatic wardec target, so we'll see most of those research POSes being taken down by the owners before the expansion release. I'm sure a few POSes will go down under fire, with appropriate whining from the owners, but that falls into the same category as players who transport PLEX in frigates, using AP.
High-sec industry will just move from POSes to NPC stations, and prices will adjust accordingly. The increased cost of doing business in the NPC stations will be offset by the savings on POS fuel costs and remote office fees, so it is hard to predict what the end effect will be on prices. |
Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
121
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:30:00 -
[1108] - Quote
I am really disappointed.
I have no problem with risk, hiring mercenaries, cost etc. These can all be estimated and factored in. And they are the same for everybody (expect for T2 BPOs but that is another topic). But how about the effort I put into the game in the last two years to position myself ahead of competition?
Yes, research and copy slots are currently a scarce resource. This is why setting up a POS in high sec is desirable. I can imagine that with the righ progressive pricing, having your own POS is still an advantage. In the past, seting up a high sec POS was not easy. Building up the necessary faction standing was tedious and mildly boring. Yet, I did this to have a competitive advantage. And this now flies out of the window. Free POS in high sec for everybody!
I have no problem with adapting to new playgrounds. Yet, I think CCP is about to remove something for which I worked really hard. This appears neither balanced nor fair.
On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
387
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:31:00 -
[1109] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Not sure why anyone thinks industry should exist in an artificial bubble of protection - you're not building/researching stuff for free, you do make money out of it. Probably because only an idiot would do industry in a war zone - this applies to both EVE and RL.
What do you think sov is all about anyways? Building up that artificial bubble of protection. |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
296
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:36:00 -
[1110] - Quote
If changes increase the profit margin, I won't mind increases but I think all profit margins will minimalize with softer borders. The original regions are profitable across borders but with in the borders racial items are very slim margins. API and marketing tools erased the borders between regions price wise. Regular market efficiencies stepped in and turned mfg into the mess it is requiring huge capital to compete pushing out newer players not only by ignorance and capital but research and acquisition times.
When the hi low null demarcations soften, over all margins will go down while prices rise to compensate for the adjustments. I see more suckage in our future. |
|
Jingo Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:36:00 -
[1111] - Quote
20% INCREASE TO T1 & T2 SHIPS! Come on guys just say that you want from us to buy PLEX for IRL money! |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1154
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:46:00 -
[1112] - Quote
I will just leave this here... ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Simili
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:50:00 -
[1113] - Quote
I am ready to keep an open mind as far as the BPOs needs to be where the build is happening (hense no more POS builds). That would mean that for those of of having 60+ concurent builds, we will probably be splitting our builds on multiple stations instead of 1 location. This means a lot more hauling, a lot more materials splitting too, which can become very annoying. Might I suggest some kind of magical button that could split your materials from current station (or a station) and then drop them in a selected container and/or ship and/or container in a ship and/or to a transport contract?
I would really like to know what' the average number of concurent builds per person (yes, person, not character) for people that are builders (not just someone building once in a while). From what I see of those new game mechanics, it will make it very difficult to have a good income over quantity because oh how much time you'll have to invest on each build which will end up, maybe, starving the market. You'll tell me that if market starve, more people will get into manufacturing and/or more profit per build will show up, true, but then prices will also jump and people will need to grind for isk to buy their stuff which would have a negative effect on subscriber base.
Thanks a lot, Sim |
Jen Takhesis
The Scope Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:54:00 -
[1114] - Quote
Canine Fiend wrote:I feel like there will now be even more High Sec POSes due to the removal of the standings requirement. This will inevitably lead to more people setting up and abandoning towers. Will there be any consideration for how to remove these large high sec towers that have been abandoned? It can be pretty disheartening to go set up a new tower only to find out that most moons are occupied by abandoned towers that would take a massive BS fleet hours to take out.
When they stop paying taxes, Concord/crimewatch sets the POS suspect until it starts paying taxes again. Alternatively, you can use your POS salvage deployable to slowly extract all of the materials used in the construction. |
Saraki Ishikela
Deep Space Adventure Time
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:57:00 -
[1115] - Quote
I'm sure it's been said, but I'm really not thrilled with new UI. Sure on the surface it looks very appealing but it is also not very intuitive. Pictures should also have labels. I should be able to read the item names and memorize the icons. |
Jingo Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:59:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Ohhh it's so democratic to delete posts! Just say the THRUTH! You want to make us buy PLEX for IRL! |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
60
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:04:00 -
[1117] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Weaselior wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc like seriously people use some brains here Have fuel use scale with active slots.
They did *away* with that very system a few years back because it made logistics a freakin nightmare. |
Bellasarius Baxter
Zilog Enterprises
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:24:00 -
[1118] - Quote
My two cents worth on this dev blog: I approve of every change mentioned EXCEPT the BPO "safety" changes.
Why ?
1) It already costs a lot of ISK, and requires a lot of work to keep a POS running, even in high sec.
2) It makes Supply Chain Management, and Scientific Networking skills useless.
3) It makes the Station Manager role too powerful, as it would enable that pilot to simply offline, and unanchor a lab with valuable bpos in it, and make off with it in a couple minutes.
4) If I understood the dev blog correctly, research slots will still be avaliable only in the same stations as they are available now, so that will create congestion in those solar systems, automatically driving the slot prices up at the same time.
5) It is impossible to share the use of bpos between multiple pilots, and keeping them even a little bit safe at the same time.
6) The idea to use copies might work if you had only a couple things you build, but if you build 50 or so things, you would spend a major part of your time making copies, instead of doing something useful, like researching other bpos.
7) If everybody had to have a corp office where research/manufacturing is done, the limited flexibility of the corp/role management system makes it very hard to set up correctly, if you have more than two offices.
8) Any POS lab, or assembly array, found after the change would be almost sure to contain valuables, and as such be a magnet for Wardecs, and theft. Any POS without labs or arrays are pretty useless in high sec, so what would be the point of having one in the first place.
9) Bpos for the above POS modules will become almost useless to high sec indy pilots.
10) The number of bpcs that the servers have to cope with, and keep track of will increase dramatically.
Enough points made, for now, though I am sure there are more.
I cannot stress this enough, although I will refrain from typing the entire sentence in capital letters: "Please,* do not make changes to bpo safety in this way".
*) Insert as many "Please," in the above, as needed to make CCP understand the chaos, frustration, and extra work this will impose on industrialists.
Any comments, thoughts, and feedback to this post is welcome, as always.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
112
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:27:00 -
[1119] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way. Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency. Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... (snip from my previous post.) Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Wrong. One of the dev's, I can't remember now, likely one of the ones let go, said quite explicitly that Eve was NEVER about enshrining a system where one area of the game was completely independent of another. ... the only thing null sec will lack is the critical mass of players to actually build decent trade hubs... "Wrong?" I did not say that having better resources across all categories, meant null was so good it didn't need highsec, that is your fear. I just pointed out that you seemed to be stating the obvious as if it were a problem: that Null had better resources. Thats the way the game has always been.
How much better is it, really? Game designers are applying scaling factors to everything... does 40% (hypothetical) better resources and production ability (lower costs, etc), in sov-null, make highsec redundant? I think I will still find players in highsec. And if that is the reason I someday stop finding them, game designers can re-adjust the scaling factors. Does a net exodus from highsec and influx to the "loving arms of the null sec cartels" mean players quit EVE, or just moved? Players can grumble that null has it 40% better, and keep on doing what they do with the game time they have available. Or they can network with other grumblers, negotiate, conquer, or rent.
You admit that complete independence isn't true atm, due to established trade hubs creating a need for highsec at some level. I think the ease of "projection" (a topic of debate for CSM 9) and the efficiency of the FedEx hub-and-spoke distribution system centered on Jita, is one of the reasons highsec is and will continue to be enhanced by sov-null.
Highsec buyers benefit from centralized competition. (ok, everyone benefits.) Highsec freight movers and traders profit by moving and selling items from Jita out to other trade and mission hubs. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5371
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:37:00 -
[1120] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I will just leave this here...
I only know 1 player who writes like this: do I mean I now know who you are in game? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5372
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:48:00 -
[1121] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way. Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency.
Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... "inspire" battles and market demand for all the stuff we can make and sell. If players are not up to the very hard job of organizing a force to unseat an existing nullsec power, some decide its worth paying a "rental fee" to a sov-holder for access to that better stuff. Null is where the "end game" content is. You can't play SuperCaps Online(tm) in highsec.
Yes but this is atrocious game design.
Hi sec is basically a wrong solution to a non problem.
Should never have been created beyond the few new player starting systems.
But hi sec seems not going anywhere anytime soon and is part of a sandbox game.
Now, if you establish a canned path that says: "IF you want to progress (in a meaningful way) you SHALL move from A to B" then you have just created a theme park game, a WoW in space.
This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game.
Either convert hi sec into something else or leave it viable. I'd really prefer the first solution but CCP so far have gone for the latter. By abdicating to the latter and also not doing the former, they are just going to enforce an obligatory path and thus create a canned progression game.
That is, a stink like most fail MMOs currently out. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1108
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:59:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way. Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency.
Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... "inspire" battles and market demand for all the stuff we can make and sell. If players are not up to the very hard job of organizing a force to unseat an existing nullsec power, some decide its worth paying a "rental fee" to a sov-holder for access to that better stuff. Null is where the "end game" content is. You can't play SuperCaps Online(tm) in highsec. Yes but this is atrocious game design. Hi sec is basically a wrong solution to a non problem. Should never have been created beyond the few new player starting systems. But hi sec seems not going anywhere anytime soon and is part of a sandbox game. Now, if you establish a canned path that says: "IF you want to progress (in a meaningful way) you SHALL move from A to B" then you have just created a theme park game, a WoW in space. This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game. Either convert hi sec into something else or leave it viable. I'd really prefer the first solution but CCP so far have gone for the latter. By abdicating to the latter and also not doing the former, they are just going to enforce an obligatory path and thus create a canned progression game. That is, a stink like most fail MMOs currently out. Honest question. What form of eve do you envision that supports the current levels of activity and interaction in highsec without highsec? |
Marsha Mallow
237
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:06:00 -
[1123] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Either convert hi sec into something else or leave it viable. I'd really prefer the first solution but CCP so far have gone for the latter. By abdicating to the latter and also not doing the former, they are just going to enforce an obligatory path and thus create a canned progression game.
That is, a stink like most fail MMOs currently out.
You need to have a bit more faith Our devs are only really silly every few years - don't be so jaded from other games. Seagull looks capable of keeping them in line. And really, if you're concerned to the point you think indy interests are under-represented on things like the CSM, why not run yourself, or endorse a candidate? There's at least 5 people I can think of active in MD with the influence to sponsor a pure indy candidate (across various blocs). Considering the last one was LVV (?) and he was recruited by CCP, there is a gap. It's not going to get filled unless some of you use that accrued influence for collective benefit.
Jingo Aulmais wrote:Ohhh it's so democratic to delete posts! Just say the THRUTH! You want to make us buy PLEX for IRL! And when you deleting this you just proofing this! Sorry, but you have to earn thrust in Eve When he comes back I'm throwing you out front and legging it - |
Macker Momo
The Big Moe Eternal Pretorian Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:11:00 -
[1124] - Quote
From the dev blog...
Quote: In turn, this allows us to change several points:
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).
Could you please define "anywhere?" Are POS still limited to available moons, or can we simply create a safe spot and anchor there? There is a problem with all the abandoned POS filling up available moons.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
400
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:13:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Macker Momo wrote:From the dev blog... Quote: In turn, this allows us to change several points:
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). Could you please define "anywhere?" Are POS still limited to available moons, or can we simply create a safe spot and anchor there? There is a problem with all the abandoned POS filling up available moons. It means "at moons only." That part is not changing. The statement means that POS are no longer restricted from 0.8 GÇô 1.0 security systems. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6982
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:19:00 -
[1126] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I will just leave this here... im just going to make a small suggestion that actually editing and hiding ccp dev posts may be flying a bit too close to the sun Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Cassandra Kazan
Padded Helmets
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:23:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Of course, the typical null sec line member will be paying a slot tax (as I predicted many months ago) directly to the station owners aka the cartel leaders. And in the meantime, the true high sec industrialists will be in very dire straits, as any null sec industrialist can for example, fill his jf with 100,000 DC II's and flood Jita with them at no price that no high sec player can match.
...and if all of this is true it will be extremely good for the game.
The tradeoff for the advantages that CCP is trying to give nullsec is risk. Risk, risk, risk.
If people do more stuff in lowsec or nullsec because it is advantageous, they are forced to take a risk. Pos can be shot, ships moving items can be shot*, stations can be shot and captured, people's space that they have upgraded can be shot at and destroyed or captured, transport and travel within nullsec and between points in nullsec can be harassed, detained, or otherwise interfered with (also through shooting) and so on. It is correspondingly much harder to do most of these things in highsec -- shooting pos requires wardecs and long hours, shooting ships requires the same (or expensive suicide ganking which was nerfed in the past year), and stations are much more difficult to interfere with.
I think you'll find that members of your purported "nullsec cartel" in general favor a gameplay style that rewards risk-taking and support any idea which increases both the risks and the rewards of nullsec. (Hell, one of Goonswarm's own CSM candidates favors destructible stations -- hardly a fantastic idea for an alliance with a hundred trillion ISK of assets locked up in VFK-IV.)
* Jump freighters, and more generally any capital which can dock at a station, are currently quite difficult to interfere with. They are key to life in nullsec right now but if all of these changes go through as planned and lead to nullsec having a more sustainable economic model then changing them should be on the table for the same reasons. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5373
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:28:00 -
[1128] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Honest question. What form of eve do you envision that supports the current levels of activity and interaction in highsec without highsec?
Back at the time I have posted a very long proposal on suggestion forums. It involved a structure similar to other PvP games, with smooth "security status gradients", player driven Concord (that is a sort of embryo of null sec sov organization with elements taken from a pre-made organization, so new players actually learn how it works) and much more.
I also covered a lot of other things and consequences but that's now part of history, it's useless to repeat it here.
Marsha Mallow wrote:You need to have a bit more faith Our devs are only really silly every few years - don't be so jaded from other games. Seagull looks capable of keeping them in line. And really, if you're concerned to the point you think indy interests are under-represented on things like the CSM, why not run yourself, or endorse a candidate? There's at least 5 people I can think of active in MD with the influence to sponsor a pure indy candidate (across various blocs). Considering the last one was LVV (?) and he was recruited by CCP, there is a gap. It's not going to get filled unless some of you use that accrued influence for collective benefit.
I have already had various contacts of multiple kinds (!) with CCP, most very appreciated. However I am so busy with my RL that I can't really contribute to EvE in a meaningful way. It's actually years since I had to leave my beloved PvP corp because I thought my limited playtime would hurt them.
Also - talking about employment - their wages are famous for not being exactly stellar, the place is kinda cold and far away. I currently live on a tropical island where I enjoy the fruits of my RL trading (and other activities) efforts, the idea of going to work under some project manager and related hierarchy does not even compare to how I am living now
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Darkopus
Upde Harris Industries
86
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:30:00 -
[1129] - Quote
To balance things out CCp shopuld now remove JF and make moving freight around need proper logistics and support convoys. This will mean that the newbie indy's inm Hi sec can still make a living (albeit a shoddy one) without getting forced out by null sec cartles moving massive stock into hisec and flooding the markets with goods at a price the small time new indy's can't ever hope to match.
Null sec talk about risk v reqard all the time so lets ee where your money is. Remove JF and make hauling out of deep null an actual proper risk that requires the freighters to have proper escort / protection rather than they current method that allows market flooding with impunity and relatively little risk.
I have no problems with cutting the balls off hisec but at least make it viable for the small timers to make a small living in their corner of hisec.
Another point is that once this all goes through it will become actually next to impossible to over throw any of the established cartels in sov. They have cemented their positions off the back of moon goo and now they wuill effectively become fully self contained resulting in shortened supply lines. Thus for a new army to arise to take them on fighting against full vertically integrated self contained industry with short supply lines will mean blue donut central within 6 months tops post summer expansion with the scraps left for any insignificant day trippers to stop CCP from shaking it up for the confortable cartels.
Industry needs a massive overhaul yes, but I am not entirely sure this is it or if this will even be healthy for the longevity of the game. Sure it will create a lot of content for hisec gankers / POS muggers.
I guess we need to see the rst of the blogs to formulate a more educated assesment, but so far this is not a solution to some of the more deep seated issues with new eden's industry. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:39:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Cassandra Kazan wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Of course, the typical null sec line member will be paying a slot tax (as I predicted many months ago) directly to the station owners aka the cartel leaders. And in the meantime, the true high sec industrialists will be in very dire straits, as any null sec industrialist can for example, fill his jf with 100,000 DC II's and flood Jita with them at no price that no high sec player can match. ...and if all of this is true it will be extremely good for the game. The tradeoff for the advantages that CCP is trying to give nullsec is risk. Risk, risk, risk. If people do more stuff in lowsec or nullsec because it is advantageous, they are forced to take a risk. Pos can be shot, ships moving items can be shot*, stations can be shot and captured, people's space that they have upgraded can be shot at and destroyed or captured, transport and travel within nullsec and between points in nullsec can be harassed, detained, or otherwise interfered with (also through shooting) and so on. It is correspondingly much harder to do most of these things in highsec -- shooting pos requires wardecs and long hours, shooting ships requires the same (or expensive suicide ganking which was nerfed in the past year), and stations are much more difficult to interfere with. I think you'll find that members of your purported "nullsec cartel" in general favor a gameplay style that rewards risk-taking and support any idea which increases both the risks and the rewards of nullsec. (Hell, one of Goonswarm's own CSM candidates favors destructible stations -- hardly a fantastic idea for an alliance with a hundred trillion ISK of assets locked up in VFK-IV.) The reason that these players support risk is that risk creates content. If you take a risk, it means that someone else can come shoot at you and that is the draw for these players. CCP's goal isn't to create a progression from highsec to nullsec necessarily -- it is to motivate players willing to take risks to do so and thereby create more content as people fight over nullsec's resources. * Jump freighters, and more generally any capital which can dock at a station, are currently quite difficult to interfere with. They are key to life in nullsec right now but if all of these changes go through as planned and lead to nullsec having a more sustainable economic model then changing them should be on the table for the same reasons.
the point of this expansion is, quite obviously, not risk. its to create an ISK sink in high sec industry and to frustrate large Industrialist using many alts accounts thereby making room for smaller (perhaps one account) industrialist to get a foothold into that part of the game with a bonus effect, at the same time, of pushing the major indy players with massive capital into lower security space. I would have thought that was completely obvious. |
|
Elmoira Dreszka
Delta Academy
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:42:00 -
[1131] - Quote
I read about the impossibility to launch jobs in POS from BPO locked in station. The reason should be to make the BPO vulnerable to pvp players. The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
400
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:43:00 -
[1132] - Quote
Elmoira Dreszka wrote: The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?
"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
108
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:51:00 -
[1133] - Quote
I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why.
What do you think the consequences for this change will be? Cause I think this will just allow established power blocs to choke up and comers more easily. (You want new players to have a chance to get settled in and form new groups right?)
Do you think there should be mechanics in place that help make Highsec a unique area of space? Should Highsec be the area of space for new players to have some advantages compared to older established groups?
Do you honestly believe that removing standings requirements makes for more interesting landscape in eve? or do have metrics that show social groups that first form in highsec never make it to low, null, wh so there is no reason to give them advantages anyway?
I personally think you should add standings to POCO use, and add taxes based on standing in lots of highsec interaction. While at the same time I do think the most profit and function should be in Null, WH, then Low then High. Nullsec should be able to out compete highsec but they just shouldn't be able to live there easily. If the CFC as a whole wants to work on standings to live in high more power to them but their should be some choice involved instead. Take all the best things in all sectors of space with no variation not so interesting to me.
I see a lot of people without standings and null sec groups praising this change but I see a lot of Highsec industrialists saying they don't like this. If you don't like this set of questions CCP other people have asked in a different way. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3462
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:58:00 -
[1134] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why. In my opinion, it is an un-fun mechanic that adds nothing to gameplay. It also hinders players from becoming industrialists.
Plus, a POS will (probably) no longer be essential for industry.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:05:00 -
[1135] - Quote
Hopefully a POS will be beneficial although with it's risks and additional effort to run.
On a side note I do make them should any new industrialist want one post summer release :) |
Rollo Brinalle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:10:00 -
[1136] - Quote
Querns wrote:Elmoira Dreszka wrote: The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?
"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content.
So then when CCP said in the blog. "Our goal in making the changes to invention are to ...." by your definition this is not a sanbox game? Just trying to get clarity here so we are all on the same plane for further discussions.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3462
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:30:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Rollo Brinalle wrote:So then when CCP said in the blog. "Our goal in making the changes to invention are to ...." by your definition this is not a sanbox game? Just trying to get clarity here so we are all on the same plane for further discussions.
You are confusing a development goal vs. a game-play paradigm (for lack of a better word) that lacks goals. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1108
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:34:00 -
[1138] - Quote
Rollo Brinalle wrote:Querns wrote:Elmoira Dreszka wrote: The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?
"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content. So then when CCP said in the blog. "Our goal in making the changes to invention are to ...." by your definition this is not a sanbox game? Just trying to get clarity here so we are all on the same plane for further discussions. That quote is kinds meaningless for the statement being addressed, not to mention I can't find it to even see what it is alluding to. I assumed it was from this dev blog, but if not, I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction. As it stands I'm not even sure what you are getting at.
That said it's clear from the POS change section that CCP expects conflict around POS's based upon these changes and anticipates both fight and flee responses. So what you must ask yourself is this. If changes are made to promote conflict within a sandbox, would that not mean that conflict is part of the sandbox?
|
Macker Momo
The Big Moe Eternal Pretorian Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:42:00 -
[1139] - Quote
I remember when my young corp decided to move the POS from one side of Eve to the other, requiring that we all work together to grind standings. My months old character joined the crusade to earn at least 7.0 Gallente standings and help anchor the POS. It was fun working together as a team towards a common goal. We helped each other fight the evil Angel Cartel and marveled at the difficulty of those level IV missions. I feel that altering the standing requirements is a mistake. CCP you're removing a primary reason to mission, and robbing new corps of one way to grow together.
As an older player, I now understand that my CEO could have chosen to buy standings or eject everyone from the corp except the one player who had 7.0 towards Gallente, but he chose to show us the value of teamwork using a well-designed game mechanic. We appreciated our new home because we had to work for it.
There is no right or wrong here. This is solely my opinion based on some fond memories of my early time in Eve. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
62
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:55:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Quote:This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game.
People like you always seem to confuse the concepts of "viable" and "optimal". Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean it's not viable. Highsec will be sub-optimal in some respects, but that doesn't mean it won't be viable as an industrial location. |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1013
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 01:01:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Zappity wrote:Weaselior wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc like seriously people use some brains here Have fuel use scale with active slots. They did *away* with that very system a few years back because it made logistics a freakin nightmare. That's a shame because it could solve both the abandoned POS and slot limitations. Decreasing 'idle' POS fuel use significantly would make it easier to keep a POS online for longer. You could then take a harder line to decrease offline EHP, making it easier to clear abandoned POS in highsec.
It really isn't hard to monitor fuel requirements by script or app. You will need new calculations anyway to account for the effect of fluctuating NPC load fees on cost anyway. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
AFK Hauler
State War Academy
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 01:52:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Few things...
1. Can't wait for a FW corp to hang a POS in an opposing faction system because there are no standing requirements! - Bad decision IMHO to remove standing for anchoring in empire... This is the worst of the features I have seen yet.
I can see it now - Sit in your POS just inside the shield and spawn NPC navy ships for your POS to blap all day long. Have an alt sit outside the shield and salvage till the cows come home. Go AFK with an MTU and salvage drones just to make it that much more of an insult.
Bad idea, really.
2. Risk/reward do not account for losing billions in materials having to take down your assembly or POS in the middle of a manufacturing run to save your multi-billions in BPOs. I can see that the copy speed feature will help save the BPOs, but not the materials lost in stopping a manufacturing run... - Give back all the materials from stopping a manufacturing run to turn on the guns and defend my space because some large 0.1 standing corp wants my 0.6 system moon! It takes smaller corps a long time to farm the standing to anchor in systems that are out of reach of large corps and are able to manufacturer in that system to feed the machine.
Must feed the machine.
I don't like a few other changes, but I can learn to deal with them and maybe exploit them (as intended).
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1013
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 01:59:00 -
[1143] - Quote
AFK Hauler wrote:Few things...
1. Can't wait for a FW corp to hang a POS in an opposing faction system because there are no standing requirements! - Bad decision IMHO to remove standing for anchoring in empire... This is the worst of the features I have seen yet.
I can see it now - Sit in your POS just inside the shield and spawn NPC navy ships for your POS to blap all day long. Have an alt sit outside the shield and salvage till the cows come home. Go AFK with an MTU and salvage drones just to make it that much more of an insult.
Bad idea, really. Just get rid of faction navies. They are a blight in a supposedly player-driven sandbox anyway.
I am delighted that standings are being stood down, as it were. They are annoying, artificial mechanics. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
147
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:05:00 -
[1144] - Quote
I see a big backlash from the industrialists. They will quit. Lots of small to mid size indy corps with large amounts of BPOs will cease to function effectively and they will go off and look for a new game. And the price of everything will go up ridiculously. Nerfing reprocessing will cause the price of everything to go up some more. Reducing barge efficiency a bit will push prices up more. Maybe make mining a bit more profitable so that may counter that increase.
Reducing the standing requirement for high sec POSes will infuriate those groups that worked to achieve the standings to be able to launch them. If newbs want to use POSes right away they can join a corp that has one.
|
AFK Hauler
State War Academy
999
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:08:00 -
[1145] - Quote
Zappity wrote:AFK Hauler wrote:Few things...
1. Can't wait for a FW corp to hang a POS in an opposing faction system because there are no standing requirements! - Bad decision IMHO to remove standing for anchoring in empire... This is the worst of the features I have seen yet.
I can see it now - Sit in your POS just inside the shield and spawn NPC navy ships for your POS to blap all day long. Have an alt sit outside the shield and salvage till the cows come home. Go AFK with an MTU and salvage drones just to make it that much more of an insult.
Bad idea, really. Just get rid of faction navies. They are a blight in a supposedly player-driven sandbox anyway. I am delighted that standings are being stood down, as it were. They are annoying, artificial mechanics.
The standing requirement serve the purpose to segregate smaller corps from larger ones. Large corps cannot hope to grind standings for a 0.6 or 0.7 system so they head to low or nulsex when no moons are available. Now we will have even less players heading to low or nul - or at least delaying their exodus.
Removing the standing to hang a tower mean that the space trash will stick around in empire and just be obnoxious.
BTW, if you don't like off line towers in empire, wardec them and remove them yourself. Having an offline tower in a 0.6 or 0.7 space serves a purpose for corps that need to expand capacity without having to re-grind sec status to re-anchor a new POS.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1013
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:16:00 -
[1146] - Quote
AFK Hauler wrote:The standing requirement serve the purpose to segregate smaller corps from larger ones. Large corps cannot hope to grind standings for a 0.6 or 0.7 system so they head to low or nulsex when no moons are available. Now we will have even less players heading to low or nul - or at least delaying their exodus. That may have been the original intent but it certainly does not work this way in practice. If a larger corp wants a highsec POS a single member with appropriate standings can just start a new corp, anchor, and then transfer membership/join alliance. This change will have bugger all effect on 'exodus to nulsex'. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
George Wizardry
Asian P0RN
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:16:00 -
[1147] - 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
I can see eve becoming a pure PvP universe so why not remove all the security zones now and get on with it?
Within the EVE universe I have no interest or desire to kill other players, real life is a different story...... |
Sylvanium Orlenard
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:52:00 -
[1148] - Quote
The information that has been released by the devs in this thread gave me an idea. Blueprint Containers you can read about it here : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4481003#post4481003 |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5373
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:54:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Querns wrote:Elmoira Dreszka wrote: The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?
"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content.
TLDR: yes Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
402
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:58:00 -
[1150] - Quote
George Wizardry wrote:I can see eve becoming a pure PvP universe so why not remove all the security zones now and get on with it?
Eve is already a pure PvP universe. By undocking, you consent to PvP. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5373
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:59:00 -
[1151] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Quote:This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game. People like you always seem to confuse the concepts of "viable" and " optimal". Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean it's not viable. Highsec will be sub-optimal in some respects, but that doesn't mean it won't be viable as an industrial location.
People like you always seem to live in an otherwordly plane of existence, where MMO players settle down for second choices.
It's not so. People would go to incredible lengths just to squeeze out that 1% improvement (it's human nature).
Look at any PvP game forums, you'll always see all sorts of complaining because class X deals 0.1% more damage than class Y in the sub-sub-sub-exceptional case under examen.
EvE is not different and no, we are not talking about ice miners who gladly trade "sub-optimal" for "total AFK and safety". Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5204
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 03:29:00 -
[1152] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Make it risky to let a POS run out of fuel. Make it risky when a defensive shield is lowered. If you let your POS run out of fuel I want to be able to pinch it! You have essentially left it unlocked and undefended, regardless of your intent.
It already is risky: I go away for a weekend, and come back to find my corp has been wardecced, my POS destroyed, my BPOs gone. How much more risky do you want it to be? Should a POS owner be required to stay logged in 24/7 and never getting sleep in order to protect their asset? Should I have a large corp and post rosters for who is supposed to be on guard duty to make sure my POS doesn't get hacked out from under me?
How much risk do you want POS owners to face? Just because your POS is sitting idle in space for three years doesn't mean it's not at risk: it just means that your offline POS is not an attractive enough target for someone to give a damn.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
ASadOldGit
School of Applied Knowledge
269
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 04:06:00 -
[1153] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. (apologies for the delay in replying - only up to page 4)
In addition to getting rid of old POSes, I've never understood why there's only space for one POS around a moon - there's room for hundreds of them (even though the current system fixes them in place - no actual orbiting going on. You'd also need to distance them so POS guns aren't continuously firing at each other). Players could be competing for minerals, just as PI forces competition for minerals on planets.
Also, space colonisation-wise, planets are more likely to have the first orbital structures, not moons - why can't we have POSes around planets, too?
Presumably it's a legacy thing to do with mining moongoo, but not all POSes mine that stuff, do they? For highsec, at least, it's just about the orbital slot. But orbital slots are soooo 22nd century - who's going to use them 40,000 years from now? (I realise nothing can likely be done for the summer release...)
Sorry to use :Science!:
Meh. |
Louis Robichaud
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
223
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 04:25:00 -
[1154] - 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.
Woah!
I knew they were being removed from NPC stations, did not realize that this also applied to POS. I imagine that having more than one array (what we used to do to get more slots) will be "beneficial" in some way still?
Anyway, I'll await to hear more details before being too concerned :)
I'm very happy to hear that industry is being fixed, and I'm positive about most of what I've heard so far. However, I do note that:
1: This will really change POS warfare in highsec. There will be far more spots than before, and with the absence of standing it will be easier for a corp to just pack up and leave for greener pastures. I imagine in the medium term there will be a lot more abandoned POS (my suggestion: after they run out of fuel and the force field drops, have the shields slowly degrade until only armor and structure is left).
2: Making industry easier and more fun is a laudable goal... yet we should be careful as to what we wish for. This will lead to more productive industrialists and more people doing industry, increasing supply and thus lowering prices and profit margins. It's a strange feeling to realize that a positive change could backfire like that... I blog a bit http://hspew.blogspot.ca |
DoToo Foo
Weaponised FuGu
16
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 04:44:00 -
[1155] - Quote
Some pilots are concerned about corp thefts of BPO's.
Allowing BPO's to be used directly from the personal hanger array (and return there when jobs are delivered) would largely resolve this issue. |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
24
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 04:45:00 -
[1156] - Quote
I'm curious to hear what bonuses could possibly justify me putting a 1.1 billion isk battleship BPO at risk, in a tower that's worth less than that by itself?
CCP has been going on a tear of late, devaluing things earned by veteran players. First it was refining SP (Which I want back, now that It'll only be half as effective as the skills I injected.), now NPC standings and remote jobs. I've never suspected CCP had it out for industrialists and miners, then we lost grav sites and it's been downhill ever since. |
FREELANCER JUNI
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 04:57:00 -
[1157] - Quote
First off i really don't care what you do to your game I have 3 account each with trader alts, making all the isk I need for PvP fun, The only way to get more real cash out of me would be raise the subscription !!
The changes on the table only say one thing to me - CCP Need more money We all get it you are a business
The reason i have come to this opinion of mine is quite simple.
One way to boost any economy is mess around with the base materials - already planed with refining changes due i really don't care I'm not a miner
The next step would be to mess with the industry that provides everything for the market Again i really don't care I'm not a Industrialist
But these alone with raise the isk price of every item in eve, which would result in more Plex sold - congrats you done it Again i really don't care I Pay via subscription
Have Fun With Your Game CCP - Lets hope you don't push to many away from eve
Cheers Freelancer Juni A programmerGÇÖs wife sends him to the grocery store with the instructions, GÇ£get a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs, get a dozen.GÇ¥ He comes home with a dozen loaf of bread and tells her, GÇ£they had eggs.GÇ¥ |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 04:57:00 -
[1158] - Quote
55 pages of bla bla
it's awesome to see industry getting attention, well done CCP!
|
Obsidian Ruby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 05:20:00 -
[1159] - Quote
So, your solution to Industry needs some help is to functionally make it so that industry corporations can't function properly due to blueprint location restrictions? I'm more or less okay with everything except for that backwards idea. Industry doesn't need more people trying to destroy it, it needs easier access to it, and removing remote usage for a pos is *not* the way to do it.
|
Rusty Waynne
Rusty Waynne Temporary Corp
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 05:45:00 -
[1160] - Quote
Oh man this looks exciting. I can't wait! |
|
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
64
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 05:52:00 -
[1161] - Quote
Questions:
Given the changes POS labs are going to undergo, what happens to any job already in progress? Will it continue unabated and have the BP return to it's origin point, still locked down? Will the job be cancelled entirely due to the code changes the lab will receive? If cancelled, will the BP get dropped at the tower? |
Red Bot Huntress
Bot Hunting Extravaganza
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 06:03:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Hey, I just got an idea.
Since you are already introducing taxes as an ISK sink on top of POS fuel costs, why not introduce an ISK sink for the other part of the player population?
Tax suicide gankers for the value of their ship + modules fitted each time concord is involved in a killmail. It doesn't have to be full 100% value, but rather a dynamic percentage from 1% to 14% depending on ganking congestion in a certain area.
This actually is a genuine proposal, that will introduce balance. Otherwise, you are just plainly punishing the industrial players. |
Eleisa Joringer
Les chips electriques
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 06:13:00 -
[1163] - Quote
Concord fees. i love the idea. Bad parking around jita : 10k isk Invoking concord with hostile action : they will fine you for the fuel and amos.
Please CCP, make offline POSes require charters. And make the amount of charters decrease with standings. |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
297
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 06:23:00 -
[1164] - Quote
There is no reson Concord shouldn't levee a fee/fine to cover their costs. We know they are already struggling when they taxed the pocos. This idea makes sense but its wrong thread.
|
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
16
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 06:41:00 -
[1165] - Quote
Red Bot Huntress wrote:Hey, I just got an idea.
Since you are already introducing taxes as an ISK sink on top of POS fuel costs, why not introduce an ISK sink for the other part of the player population?
Tax suicide gankers for the value of their ship + modules fitted each time concord is involved in a killmail. It doesn't have to be full 100% value, but rather a dynamic percentage from 1% to 14% depending on ganking congestion in a certain area.
This actually is a genuine proposal, that will introduce balance. Otherwise, you are just plainly punishing the industrial players.
This...CCP needs to prove that balance is what they are after, all I've seen in these Dev blogs is alot of cheap "More risk equals more reward" except all I am seeing is that there is more risk, conveniently I'm supposed to accept that the more reward is a click friendly UI? Show me the risk for IQ challenged gankers will rise in the same manner that my expenses just did with this expansion. |
Radgette
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
66
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:05:00 -
[1166] - Quote
Ok maybe someone can explain this to me from a lore/RP perspective.
We have FTL communications and can talk and send silly images all the way across the cluster.
When we are podded we can instantly transfer our consciousness from thousands of lightyears away to a new body.
We can remotely change market orders across entire regions of space.
BUT
now we can nolonger upload schematics to our starbases from a station in the same system?
Is the universal internet provider running out of bandwidth or something? are we getting upload limits and so should we change provider for a better connection :p |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2694
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:13:00 -
[1167] - Quote
Anders Madeveda wrote:Red Bot Huntress wrote:Hey, I just got an idea.
Since you are already introducing taxes as an ISK sink on top of POS fuel costs, why not introduce an ISK sink for the other part of the player population?
Tax suicide gankers for the value of their ship + modules fitted each time concord is involved in a killmail. It doesn't have to be full 100% value, but rather a dynamic percentage from 1% to 14% depending on ganking congestion in a certain area.
This actually is a genuine proposal, that will introduce balance. Otherwise, you are just plainly punishing the industrial players. This...CCP needs to prove that balance is what they are after, all I've seen in these Dev blogs is alot of cheap "More risk equals more reward" except all I am seeing is that there is more risk, conveniently I'm supposed to accept that the more reward is a click friendly UI? Show me the risk for IQ challenged gankers will rise in the same manner that my expenses just did with this expansion.
You know the answer to that. This whole change is designed to make life miserable for those that think a game can be about more than mindless mayhem. The inmates do run the asylum. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
398
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:29:00 -
[1168] - Quote
With regards to the remote comparison of station's installation costs for industry jobs, will we be able to have sort of favorites (ie. stations we always want to compare to the current location) or will it be region/constellation/system-based only? |
Theo Sotken
Mother Knows Best Corporation
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:29:00 -
[1169] - Quote
Since it seems intended that we start storing valuable items in POSes are we going to be able to use them efficiently while not offlining their defences and are CCP going to fix the weapon systems associated with Caldari and Gallentee POSes.
Also is anything going to be done about wardec fees as it will cost far less to wardec small corps poses than that of larger groups. The wardec fee passively makes the larger groups assets more protected. |
Oxide Ammar
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:36:00 -
[1170] - Quote
If they are ******* removing the standing requirements for anchoring POS I demand removing the need to buy stupid charters of faction I don't and they don't give **** about my standing toward them....if CCP have the balls and analogy since they are screwing everything around like this, they should remove this. |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5205
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:53:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Kethry Avenger wrote:I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why. In my opinion, it is an un-fun mechanic that adds nothing to gameplay. It also hinders players from becoming industrialists. Plus, a POS will (probably) no longer be essential for industry.
So we should remove everything from the game that is "un-fun"? What about miner bumping? Suicide ganking? Those are definitely un-fun for me.
On the other hand, I happily grind faction standings because I know it gives (or used to give) an advantage over other players who will be more restricted in their choice of POS location. Standings requirements add significant gameplay, there are even corporations based on giving people the benefits of standings:
- Estel Arador corp services
- Imiarr Timshae's "The Standings Correction Agency"
- various POS-erection agents who join the corp, boost the standings, then leave the corp once your POS is anchored
Just because you find them annoying doesn't mean they don't add meaning to the game.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Kaius Fero
30
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:59:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:If they are ******* removing the standing requirements for anchoring POS I demand removing the need to buy stupid charters of faction I don't and they don't give **** about my standing toward them....if CCP have the balls and analogy since they are screwing everything around like this, they should remove this. Or better.. fuk hi sec and turn everything into null. I already have the feeling that I'm playing a prison sim where everything is based on scams, gank &****. Soon as you undock/exit your cell.. expect that you will be raped and fukt up. We need more lube, not science.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1013
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:22:00 -
[1173] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Kethry Avenger wrote:I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why. In my opinion, it is an un-fun mechanic that adds nothing to gameplay. It also hinders players from becoming industrialists. Plus, a POS will (probably) no longer be essential for industry. So we should remove everything from the game that is "un-fun"? What about miner bumping? Suicide ganking? Those are definitely un-fun for me. On the other hand, I happily grind faction standings because I know it gives (or used to give) an advantage over other players who will be more restricted in their choice of POS location. Standings requirements add significant gameplay, there are even corporations based on giving people the benefits of standings:
- Estel Arador corp services
- Imiarr Timshae's "The Standings Correction Agency"
- various POS-erection agents who join the corp, boost the standings, then leave the corp once your POS is anchored
Just because you find them annoying doesn't mean they don't add meaning to the game. I agree with what you are saying to an extent. But the manner in which you have to gain those standings - missions - is indefensible. If CCP introduced tags for standings I would have no problem with standings at all. But I refuse to grind and mechanics which force me to are bad. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1013
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:24:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:We need more lube, not science. You're not even getting science. Invention changes aren't until autumn or winter. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3466
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:27:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Kethry Avenger wrote:I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why. In my opinion, it is an un-fun mechanic that adds nothing to gameplay. It also hinders players from becoming industrialists. Plus, a POS will (probably) no longer be essential for industry. So we should remove everything from the game that is "un-fun"? What about miner bumping? Suicide ganking? Those are definitely un-fun for me. Read again please. I stated two conditions and you are focusing on only one of them.
Bumping and ganking do add to gameplay, at least in my opinion. They are also fun for at least one party involved. |
Oxide Ammar
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:42:00 -
[1176] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Kethry Avenger wrote:I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why. In my opinion, it is an un-fun mechanic that adds nothing to gameplay. It also hinders players from becoming industrialists. Plus, a POS will (probably) no longer be essential for industry. So we should remove everything from the game that is "un-fun"? What about miner bumping? Suicide ganking? Those are definitely un-fun for me. Read again please. I stated two conditions and you are focusing on only one of them. Bumping and ganking do add to gameplay, at least in my opinion.
Working towards raising faction standing was a gameplay and they simply removed it, it's not just because it was gameplay with NPCs means to remove it and leave bumping and ganking alone.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
398
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:44:00 -
[1177] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote: Bumping and ganking do add to gameplay, at least in my opinion. They are also fun for at least one party involved.
Standing grind also adds to gameplay: It gives standing for the POS, it gives LP to exchange for items and subsequently ISK, it gives mission runner hunters a chance for a shiny kill. Missions are also fun or at least a good pastime for many players. So... with the grind 2 parties win over your "1 side wins in ganks". We should remove ganks, as it is providing an inferior amount of fun compared to missions.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:59:00 -
[1178] - Quote
I do hope they are looking at a full mission overhaul now for maybe the winter release since standings grind is no longer as necessary (though it still gives access to higher mission levels, better refining etc) |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 09:04:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Simili wrote:...I would really like to know what' the average number of concurent builds per person (yes, person, not character) for people that are builders (not just someone building once in a while)....
Currently (with 4 chars having their slots empty right now due to relocating):
29 Invention 27 Copying 65 ME 20 PE 122 Manufacturing
Regarding the removal of extra materials and the resulting explosion in need of PI goods for default T2 (-4ME) BPCs i wonder, if it is possible to just make all "higher" materials (i.e. non-minerals/ice-products) be unaffected by waste? In some way the entire idea of "waste" in the current system is flawed. I mean how the hell would a ship come to need a second pair of thrusters for manufacturing? oO Waste makes sense for basic materials that are "processed" while building more complex stuff, not for finished components.
Is there going to be a dedicated blog with details on the changes for material need (+waste) and how the removal of extra materials is balanced (in respect to waste)?
|
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
318
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 09:05:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Kethry Avenger wrote:I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why. In my opinion, it is an un-fun mechanic that adds nothing to gameplay. It also hinders players from becoming industrialists. Plus, a POS will (probably) no longer be essential for industry. So we should remove everything from the game that is "un-fun"? What about miner bumping? Suicide ganking? Those are definitely un-fun for me. Read again please. I stated two conditions and you are focusing on only one of them. Bumping and ganking do add to gameplay, at least in my opinion. They are also fun for at least one party involved.
I agree with.... both of you.
The current standing mechanic was a bit crappy. For a larger corp it's pretty hard to get the right standings and for Industry char's who maybe did one mission and messed up corps standings it was a nightmare. Still, I believe they were an important factor in owning a POS and provided an interesting dynamic. For example, your POS being attacked during a war was a big deal if you didn't have the standings to simply take it down and put it up again. It required you to work towards that goal and plan carefully. It used to be an intelligent strategic decision.
I think it should have been reworked to something more sensible... something that encourages INTERACTION and GROUP activity. Maybe allow faction standings to be shared more easily, maybe add tags like with sec status, maybe lower the requirement or allow more ways to raise faction standings that the corp could do as a group. Maybe all of the above but complete removal of those requirements is absurd.
The sand is being drained away from the sandbox. That's all I'm saying. Eve is slowly starting to look like a theme park with no barriers of entry, no cooperation or interaction required to achieve serious results or goals. |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 09:20:00 -
[1181] - Quote
We should probably wait to see how the 'Teams' aspect will work out, standings may still be important some way, just not for the initial standing up the tower. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 09:28:00 -
[1182] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Kethry Avenger wrote:I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why. In my opinion, it is an un-fun mechanic that adds nothing to gameplay. It also hinders players from becoming industrialists. Plus, a POS will (probably) no longer be essential for industry. So we should remove everything from the game that is "un-fun"? What about miner bumping? Suicide ganking? Those are definitely un-fun for me. Read again please. I stated two conditions and you are focusing on only one of them. Bumping and ganking do add to gameplay, at least in my opinion. They are also fun for at least one party involved. I agree with.... both of you. The current standing mechanic was a bit crappy. For a larger corp it's pretty hard to get the right standings and for Industry char's who maybe did one mission and messed up corps standings it was a nightmare. Still, I believe they were an important factor in owning a POS and provided an interesting dynamic. For example, your POS being attacked during a war was a big deal if you didn't have the standings to simply take it down and put it up again. It required you to work towards that goal and plan carefully. It used to be an intelligent strategic decision. I think it should have been reworked to something more sensible... something that encourages INTERACTION and GROUP activity. Maybe allow faction standings to be shared more easily, maybe add tags like with sec status, maybe lower the requirement or allow more ways to raise faction standings that the corp could do as a group. Maybe all of the above but complete removal of those requirements is absurd. The sand is being drained away from the sandbox. That's all I'm saying. Eve is slowly starting to look like a theme park with no barriers of entry, no cooperation or interaction required to achieve serious results or goals.
Refining is getting a major nerf. Mineral compression is going away completely. instead there will only be 2 viable ways to move huge amounts of trit around in any sensible fashion. Rorqual->JF in Low/Null -or- Compression Array ->Freighter ->Station in High. Post patch no one is going to be shipping trit in an industrial that does any kind of capital production. Its going to have to stay in compressed rock form till it hits it final destination and then refined there with a specialized toon. Since Compression Arrays will be able to be anchored anywhere in High it only stands to reason that CCP needs to have the veld miners be able to use those arrays by also being able to compress their ore for logistics purposes. If all the veld miners had to suddenly start grinding standing to Anchor a stick what do you think would happen to the trit market and then New Eden industry as a whole? If the refining and mineral compression changes were happening at different times they might not have to do away with standings. My guess is that all this is leading to POS code changes down the road but they cant rewrite everything at once so some sacrifices have to be made to have the game at least be functional. |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
187
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 09:43:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote: The sand is being drained away from the sandbox. That's all I'm saying. Eve is slowly starting to look like a theme park with no barriers of entry, no cooperation or interaction required to achieve serious results or goals.
Barriers of entry are more of a themepark trait, not sandbox. There is nothing sandboxy about having to grind through a billion quests to unlock the ability for your character to set up a factory.
|
nXus
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 09:44:00 -
[1184] - Quote
Changes seem interesting. Mixing things up now and again keeps things fresh.
The only real concern I have is around lack of offices in Research Stations.
Currently you have lots of research pos's in systems with stations lacking any research facilities. But their BPOs can still be locked down in station and researched via a POS. Essentially the POS's have expanded the number of useful research stations for corps to lock down BPOs.
Ok so we need to move those BPO's now. No problem. Unlock vote, move BPOs. DOH! no offices free :(
Timeline
1) Prior to upgrade, all offices in stations with research facilities rented. Office rental prices sky rocket.
2) Those that miss out, can no longer keep BPO's in corp, and have to move BPO's to personal hangars due to no Lock down vote without corp office.
3) Person with BPOs in their personal hanger goes AWOL due to some RL issue etc. Corp loses access to BPOs. Starting to sound a bit risky with station researching.
It would be interesting to see just how many corps are researching in/from NPC stations currently and whether the Research stations will be able to handle that move. I'm predicting they will not. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
559
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 09:57:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Regarding the following bullet point from the recent industry dev blog,
Quote:"Copy time on all blueprints is going to be slightly shorter than the time required to build from that blueprint, providing a low(er) risk option to build at POS for those who wish to do so."
, does this mean that blueprints that at the moment take a very long time to copy are going to have that time reduced, for example some mining crystals (E.g. Arkonor) take an age to copy (as you must if you want to invent with them) compared to the length of time it takes to actually build one, or does it mean that manufacturing time is going to be increased to more closely match the copy time? |
WOHEHIV
outer space pirates Interstellar Confederation
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:00:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Quote: Research equipment: items used for science jobs
..... Datacores: sink used in Invention and Reverse Engineering jobs ......
to consolidate the usage and need of datacores too ? i think it would be worth having a look again at them.
Quote:Extra Materials, the fifth wheel ......
Elite Drone AI, the sixth wheel
to redefine the usage of them ?
|
Oxide Ammar
93
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:11:00 -
[1187] - Quote
Unezka Turigahl wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote: The sand is being drained away from the sandbox. That's all I'm saying. Eve is slowly starting to look like a theme park with no barriers of entry, no cooperation or interaction required to achieve serious results or goals.
Barriers of entry are more of a themepark trait, not sandbox. There is nothing sandboxy about having to grind through a billion quests to unlock the ability for your character to set up a factory.
Do COSMOS mission and you will have the enough standing to anchor POS in a week or two maximum like I did, so what the hell billion quests you are talking about ? since you don't know nothing about standing please don't contribute to this thread. If you are pulling statements like this out from your ass then don't. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:42:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Unezka Turigah wrote:...Barriers of entry are more of a themepark trait, not sandbox. There is nothing sandboxy about having to grind through a billion quests to unlock the ability for your character to set up a factory.
Do COSMOS mission and you will have the enough standing to anchor POS in a week or two maximum like I did, so what the hell billion quests you are talking about ? since you don't know nothing about standing please don't contribute to this thread. If you are pulling statements like this out from your ass then don't.
Well, he has a point there.. Everybody should be able to anchor a POS imho, but those with good standings towards the local empire factions or even the NPC corp next door (ehrm.. moon) should benefit from that standing, for example in the way of greatly reduced fuel costs compared to those without said standing. So maybe allow every capsuleer and their clone army to anchor a POS wherever they want, but double default fuel costs and introduce fuel consumtion relative to system sec+standings so that we get the same fuel consumptions for ppl with good standings as we now have.
I think this way the standing grinders remain happy, the ones making their entry into the POS hassle are happy too, but need to pay for it, and the industrialists that make fuel will be even more excited ;) |
Steijn
Quay Industries
461
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:02:00 -
[1189] - 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.
There has still not been a satisfactory explanation as to WHY the scaling taxes apply to POS owners. Its okay for you to keep saying wait until the Blog appears, but thats not an answer.
The other changes like BPs having to be in a POS etc. whilst not been popular, are logical and make sense. So do scaling taxes in NPC stations. But to start applying taxes to something which is nothing to do with an NPC corp and is the sole responsibility of a player, just reeks of CCPs desperation to remove ISK from the game.
If it is an ISK sink, surely it makes sense to slow down the source of ISK and not apply silly illogical taxes that most POS owners ive spoken to find ludicrous. |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
188
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:03:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Unezka Turigahl wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote: The sand is being drained away from the sandbox. That's all I'm saying. Eve is slowly starting to look like a theme park with no barriers of entry, no cooperation or interaction required to achieve serious results or goals.
Barriers of entry are more of a themepark trait, not sandbox. There is nothing sandboxy about having to grind through a billion quests to unlock the ability for your character to set up a factory. Do COSMOS mission and you will have the enough standing to anchor POS in a week or two maximum like I did, so what the hell billion quests you are talking about ? since you don't know nothing about standing please don't contribute to this thread. If you are pulling statements like this out from your ass then don't.
The number of quests is actually not terribly important to my point. I was discussing the misuse of the terms themepark and sandbox. Quantity is irrelevant, though "one or two weeks" of terrible coma-inducing boredom is still a bore, and I'm glad people will no longer be forced to suffer through it. Even if you only had to run a single quest to be able to deploy a POS, that would still not be a sandbox-like feature. Sandbox games move away from reliance on scripted content such as quests. |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1014
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:11:00 -
[1191] - Quote
Steijn 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. There has still not been a satisfactory explanation as to WHY the scaling taxes apply to POS owners. Its okay for you to keep saying wait until the Blog appears, but thats not an answer. Because slots are disappearing and the new limit on how many jobs you can run is the scaling NPC charges. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
607
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:14:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Steijn 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. There has still not been a satisfactory explanation as to WHY the scaling taxes apply to POS owners. Its okay for you to keep saying wait until the Blog appears, but thats not an answer. The other changes like BPs having to be in a POS etc. whilst not been popular, are logical and make sense. So do scaling taxes in NPC stations. But to start applying taxes to something which is nothing to do with an NPC corp and is the sole responsibility of a player, just reeks of CCPs desperation to remove ISK from the game. If it is an ISK sink, surely it makes sense to slow down the source of ISK and not apply silly illogical taxes that most POS owners ive spoken to find ludicrous.
First and foremost it's a game mechanic and provides an ISK sink. Period. If you desperately need an in-lore answer, instead of licking your way up the Empire's asses, you can now bribe them to allow a POS in any space.
There's your answer. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Steijn
Quay Industries
461
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:18:00 -
[1193] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:First and foremost it's a game mechanic and provides an ISK sink. Period. If you desperately need an in-lore answer, instead of licking your way up the Empire's asses, you can now bribe them to allow a POS in any space.
There's your answer.
so what happens if I put a POS in a WH, who takes the tax, the sleepers?
like i said, its ludicrous and reeks of desperation.
What next? all ships require fuel in order to operate and this fuel is only sold by NPCs? You might say thats crazy, but its more logical than taxing a POS slot. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3081
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:27:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Steijn wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:First and foremost it's a game mechanic and provides an ISK sink. Period. If you desperately need an in-lore answer, instead of licking your way up the Empire's asses, you can now bribe them to allow a POS in any space.
There's your answer. so what happens if I put a POS in a WH, who takes the tax, the sleepers? like i said, its ludicrous and reeks of desperation. What next? all ships require fuel in order to operate and this fuel is only sold by NPCs? You might say thats crazy, but its more logical than taxing a POS slot.
You're paying the workers. And for the IP licensing costs to be able to make things, because people have pushed through changes on Empire patent law. And if you don't pay, they'll seize all your ISK, stored in the central banking systems.
There, lore reasons. Happy? Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:30:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Steijn wrote:
There has still not been a satisfactory explanation as to WHY the scaling taxes apply to POS owners. Its okay for you to keep saying wait until the Blog appears, but thats not an answer.
dont see it as a tax but see it as maintance cost. Want to go over the normal amount of slots for an assembly array? sure but its goign to cost you. |
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:32:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:You're paying the workers. And for the IP licensing costs to be able to make things, because people have pushed through changes on Empire patent law. And if you don't pay, they'll seize all your ISK, stored in the central banking systems. And if you want more research done at the same time, you need more workers and more equipment, which is expensive since you don't really have the room for it. If you add more slots, you have more room, and the costs go down. Kinda like if you have more people working, you also need to rent more chairs, managers, janitors, etc. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
559
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:41:00 -
[1197] - Quote
What? Did someone just say scaling taxes apply to POS owners? Really? My manufacturing and research at the POS I'm paying 450m a month in fuel to run... is going to be taxed? |
Lucy Riraille
Aliastra Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:42:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Although I like the announcement that Industry gets an overhaul, which it nedded pretty badly, I am somewhat confused about CCP's masterplan to whip any player who wishes to do some things efficiently into sov nulsec!
This is just a plain bad idea. We know that CCP just loves nulsec and wants as many players as possible to go there.
BUT
Very few players live in Nulsec because of ****** game mechanics! Poor POS Management, awoxers, afk cloaky neuts,
Now industrial slots in Hisec will become absirdly expensive while Mittens sweethearts will be able to use outpost slots for far less? Will all the hordes of nulsec industrialists be able to satisfy demand of Hisec?
NO!
Simply put: there are too few ibdustrialists in nulsec. And, as GSF and Mittens officially **** on prodders and miners, this change will have a tremendous impact on EVE ingame economics.
Unfortunately, CCP Management fails to understand that as Nulsec residents are simply a minority of eve players and that the majority of Industry and prodding takes place in Hisec and that this has been successfully so for many years, CCP executives do everything they can to nerf Hisec, the home of the majority of EVE players in a way that hopefully a few thousand industrialists will look at the changes, evaluate them and then throw their BPOs in the trash, quit their accounts and leave EVE for the elder scrolls online.
Ice has become a limited resource, thx to mechanic changes, Fuel prices raised a bit as icemining outside hisec became so profitable that the demand on the market could still b fulfilled.
Now every newbie plaer will be able to put a pos anywhere he likes. Why shouldn't there be any standing needed? At least some effort or at least someone elses effort (POS standing service) was needed to have a POS. Corps payed rent for offices at stations (ISK DRAIN, good against inflation) so thexy could do research and produciton independently from the limitd availability of slots at stations. People used to laugh at other people who accidentally or deliberately stored their bPos inside a POS.
Why do you change this before putting POS management right?
Why do you want to punish poeple who have spent BILLIONS of ISK in BPOs research time and caring and refuelling of POSses? In order to get better defense capabilities, will we be able to get starbase defense management as a starter skill? With no number of controllable pos modules perhaps?
Game development in EVE lacks a clear transparent und publicly advertised goal!
On the one hand, CCP removes effort/skill requirements for some things so that new player might have easier access (i.E. T1 industrial revamp and other examples). On the other hand highly specialized chars (time intensive skillings) are hit by the nerf hammer as the activites they trained for years now will be far profitable.
Does CCP wants us all to sit in Nulsec, permagrinding anos for faction and officer loot, making billions of isk? Like all the bot ratters in deklein?
Why does CCP wants to increase the income of all these nulsec RMT, that make hundreds of thousands of |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:56:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:You're paying the workers. And for the IP licensing costs to be able to make things, because people have pushed through changes on Empire patent law. And if you don't pay, they'll seize all your ISK, stored in the central banking systems. And if you want more research done at the same time, you need more workers and more equipment, which is expensive since you don't really have the room for it. If you add more slots, you have more room, and the costs go down. Kinda like if you have more people working, you also need to rent more chairs, managers, janitors, etc.
Or increased maintenance costs on automated systems, just like factories in rl...things aren't magically made from goods, they are processed and that carries inherent overheads no matter where you do it. CCP could model this by making manufacture jobs consume mechanical parts and robotics per run, test cultures, bacteria, Water cooled CPU etc for research runs. This would simply add complexity though (Unless the super whizzy GUI will deal with the nastiness).
People would still complain about the new form of equivalent fuel for research rather than rejoice in having as many slots as they want with the associated cost. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:59:00 -
[1200] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:What? Did someone just say scaling taxes apply to POS owners? Really? My manufacturing and research at the POS I'm paying 450m a month in fuel to run... is going to be taxed?
Or do you mean starting a job on the station floor, not at the actual POS?
Scaling costs will apply to all, just think of it as overhead on machine refits/repairs/scaling up plant lines etc.
|
|
Cheradenine Harper
Ankh-Morpork Holiday Homes
12
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:19:00 -
[1201] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down.
See the Abandoned POS thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=333764&find=unread http://diaries-of-a-space-noob.blogspot.co.uk |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
559
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:25:00 -
[1202] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:What? Did someone just say scaling taxes apply to POS owners? Really? My manufacturing and research at the POS I'm paying 450m a month in fuel to run... is going to be taxed?
Or do you mean starting a job on the station floor, not at the actual POS? Scaling costs will apply to all, just think of it as overhead on machine refits/repairs/scaling up plant lines etc.
No. I'm thinking of it as a tax on manufacturing in high sec, additional to the existing cost I already incur running a POS and one I cannot escape even with several highly skilled characters. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
559
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:32:00 -
[1203] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Or increased maintenance costs on automated systems, just like factories in rl...things aren't magically made from goods, they are processed and that carries inherent overheads no matter where you do it. CCP could model this by making manufacture jobs consume mechanical parts and robotics per run, test cultures, bacteria, Water cooled CPU etc for research runs. This would simply add complexity though (Unless the super whizzy GUI will deal with the nastiness).
My factory is completely automated. All of the things necessary to make it run and maintain it are included in the "fuel block". Remember how all of that stuff was combined into a block to make running a POS less of a pain in the butt?
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:38:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Or increased maintenance costs on automated systems, just like factories in rl...things aren't magically made from goods, they are processed and that carries inherent overheads no matter where you do it. CCP could model this by making manufacture jobs consume mechanical parts and robotics per run, test cultures, bacteria, Water cooled CPU etc for research runs. This would simply add complexity though (Unless the super whizzy GUI will deal with the nastiness).
My factory is completely automated. All of the things necessary to make it run and maintain it are included in the "fuel block". Remember how all of that stuff was combined into a block to make running a POS less of a pain in the butt?
I was just making an example case for why, but it stands to reason that the more you push the factory the more it'll cost in maintenance overheads. Would you rather this be a tax for simplicity or shipping more fuel blocks which as you say contain all the goodies required for maintenance etc...and as far as I know stations are almost always manned in some way or another. We just don't list crew as it would over-complicate things. A fully automated system will fail at some piont no matter how good it is. The more complexthe system, the more failures. Squishy humans will always be required to a degree |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
559
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:40:00 -
[1205] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I was just making an example case for why, but it stands to reason that the more you push the factory the more it'll cost in maintenance overheads. Would you rather this be a tax for simplicity or shipping more fuel blocks which as you say contain all the goodies required for maintenance etc...and as far as I know stations are almost always manned in some way or another. We just don't list crew as it would over-complicate things. A fully automated system will fail at some piont no matter how good it is. The more complexthe system, the more failures. Squishy humans will always be required to a degree
It was CCP who changed POSs to use the same amount of fuel regardless of which modules you had onlined there, not me. As far as I'm concerned, 28,800 fuel blocks a month on a large POS is already covering everything I can fit on it. If they want to *reduce* my fuel cost if I offline modules, fine I have no problem with that. Otherwise, just piling on even more costs will have a single effect on me as a small business owner: I'll take down the POS and not bother building any more.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:47:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I was just making an example case for why, but it stands to reason that the more you push the factory the more it'll cost in maintenance overheads. Would you rather this be a tax for simplicity or shipping more fuel blocks which as you say contain all the goodies required for maintenance etc...and as far as I know stations are almost always manned in some way or another. We just don't list crew as it would over-complicate things. A fully automated system will fail at some piont no matter how good it is. The more complexthe system, the more failures. Squishy humans will always be required to a degree
It was CCP who changed POSs to use the same amount of fuel regardless of which modules you had onlined there, not me. As far as I'm concerned, 28,800 fuel blocks a month on a large POS is already covering everything I can fit on it. If they want to *reduce* my fuel cost if I offline modules, fine I have no problem with that. Otherwise, just piling on even more costs will have a single effect on me as a small business owner: I'll take down the POS and not bother building any more.
I'm new to POS management and will be setting one up just as soon as I can so I'm thinking CCP expect this will balance out...and less profit is better than no profit so many people will consider quitting then just carry on as is and accept it.. Also I would expect that your POS would still manufacture the same amount after the release as it does now without incurring costs. I *think* the change is that if you stack more jobs onto a lab than its optimal rating it will incur the stacking costs per extra job. This is yet to be made clear in a future blog though.
As a side note I only just earned the standings required to stand up a POS but am not concerned about the time this has taken due to the other benefits from having done so. I have no issue with dropping the standings requirement but would like to see it have some impact in some way on the whole S&I area to benefit those who have gone through the grind. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
559
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:50:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I'm new to POS management and will be setting one up just as soon as I can so I'm thinking CCP expect this will balance out...and less profit is better than no profit so many people will consider quitting then just carry on as is and accept it.. Also I would expect that your POS would still manufacture the same amount after the release as it does now without incurring costs. I *think* the change is that if you stack more jobs onto a lab than its optimal rating it will incur the stacking costs per extra job. This is yet to be made clear in a future blog though.
As a side note I only just earned the standings required to stand up a POS but am not concerned about the time this has taken due to the other benefits from having done so. I have no issue with dropping the standings requirement but would like to see it have some impact in some way on the whole S&I area to benefit those who have gone through the grind.
Well, in the absence of any clarity we surely can't draw any conclusions. Specifically it isn't clear how R&D and manufacturing at POS's is affected by all of this. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:54:00 -
[1208] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:What? Did someone just say scaling taxes apply to POS owners? Really? My manufacturing and research at the POS I'm paying 450m a month in fuel to run... is going to be taxed?
Or do you mean starting a job on the station floor, not at the actual POS? Scaling costs will apply to all, just think of it as overhead on machine refits/repairs/scaling up plant lines etc. No. I'm thinking of it as a tax on manufacturing, additional to the existing cost I already incur running a POS and one I cannot escape even with several highly skilled characters. It implies I have to run around all over the place to find the lowest (temporary) manufacturing cost. That might be different to the place where I can get the lowest research cost. All of my stuff gets spread around. I can no longer have a "base of operations" if I care about my costs (which I do). I have to manage it all and it's going to be a gigantic pain in the butt.
But it isnt tax, thats what you are wrong about.
A factory can churn out 50 jobs per day at cost X what is now. But said factory in teh future can churn out 100 jobs at cost Y, but no one said it cant do just 50 jobs at cost X still. Just when you get over the amount it is ment for scaling cost should come into play.
No point in getting all angry and huffpuff abou tthese changes when we only have half of the info. Look forward to that next devblog where they'll go more in detail about that scaling cost and how it works exactly.
if 50 jobs turn into cost Y and not stay at cost X, then sure go ahead and be all angry lol |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:55:00 -
[1209] - Quote
nope, the next 4blogs should cover this
I'm thinking the number of blogs is a good indication of the extent of the S&I overhaul...can only be a good thing but I'm sure there will be ...niggles... |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
560
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:04:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Firvain wrote:
But it isnt tax, thats what you are wrong about.
A factory can churn out 50 jobs per day at cost X what is now. But said factory in teh future can churn out 100 jobs at cost Y, but no one said it cant do just 50 jobs at cost X still. Just when you get over the amount it is ment for scaling cost should come into play.
No point in getting all angry and huffpuff abou tthese changes when we only have half of the info. Look forward to that next devblog where they'll go more in detail about that scaling cost and how it works exactly.
if 50 jobs turn into cost Y and not stay at cost X, then sure go ahead and be all angry lol
I don't see anywhere that the costs of manufacturing are going to be the same. I see them scaling with how popular the factory is. But what isn't clear to me is whether a POS assembly array is classed as a "factory" for the purposes of said costs. If it is, how is the cost to be calculated? I'm going to be taxed for running jobs in my own factory?
I don't know what your other point is. At the moment I churn out 50 jobs a day at cost 50X. After the expansion, I will still churn out 50 jobs a day but my cost will be 50X + tY, where Y is some scaling function and t is the current job number. I have no idea and I don't think CCP do either. |
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:11:00 -
[1211] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Firvain wrote:
But it isnt tax, thats what you are wrong about.
A factory can churn out 50 jobs per day at cost X what is now. But said factory in teh future can churn out 100 jobs at cost Y, but no one said it cant do just 50 jobs at cost X still. Just when you get over the amount it is ment for scaling cost should come into play.
No point in getting all angry and huffpuff abou tthese changes when we only have half of the info. Look forward to that next devblog where they'll go more in detail about that scaling cost and how it works exactly.
if 50 jobs turn into cost Y and not stay at cost X, then sure go ahead and be all angry lol
I don't see anywhere that the costs of manufacturing are going to be the same. I see them scaling with how popular the factory is. But what isn't clear to me is whether a POS assembly array is classed as a "factory" for the purposes of said costs. If it is, how is the cost to be calculated? I'm going to be taxed for running jobs in my own factory? At the moment my POS factory slot cost is zero. ZERO. When I factor in the fuel cost of my POS, it's actually quite expensive (450m a month to run). I don't know what your other point is. At the moment I churn out 50 jobs a day at cost 50X. After the expansion, I will still churn out 50 jobs a day but my cost will be 50X + tY, where Y is some scaling function and t is the current job number. I have no idea and I don't think CCP do either.
Except that your additional cost of tY might well turn out to be zero (or near zero) for the same number of jobs your POS can currently handle. With the benefit, that you can install even more jobs, but then your tY will indeed increase. Right now however all this is speculation until CCP releases exact numbers ;)
|
Kenhi sama
Project Stealth Squad The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:12:00 -
[1212] - Quote
So will the new system be capabl of remembering setting, like if you want to setup 10 jobs with the same values? |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
561
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:18:00 -
[1213] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote: Except that your additional cost of tY might well turn out to be zero (or near zero) for the same number of jobs your POS can currently handle. With the benefit, that you can install even more jobs, but then your tY will indeed increase. Right now however all this is speculation until CCP releases exact numbers ;)
As a business person, I don't like uncertainty. Whether or not my current or planned run is profitable depends to a large extent upon certain costs I know I'm going to incur. For me the cost is crystallised when I actually buy the moon goo or components or minerals. Everything else is fixed. But now it seems CCP are going to introduce a variable cost factor I have no way of predicting. It's really quite obnoxious. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5600
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:32:00 -
[1214] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Banko Mato wrote: Except that your additional cost of tY might well turn out to be zero (or near zero) for the same number of jobs your POS can currently handle. With the benefit, that you can install even more jobs, but then your tY will indeed increase. Right now however all this is speculation until CCP releases exact numbers ;)
As a business person, I don't like uncertainty. Whether or not my current or planned run is profitable depends to a large extent upon certain costs I know I'm going to incur. For me the cost is crystallised when I actually buy the moon goo or components or minerals. Everything else is fixed. But now it seems CCP are going to introduce a variable cost factor I have no way of predicting. It's really quite obnoxious. Well, we know that the exact cost will be shown before you run the job. What we don't know if if you can put together "hypothetical" manufacturing runs to see what the cost would be. 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. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:37:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:I do hope they are looking at a full mission overhaul now for maybe the winter release since standings grind is no longer as necessary (though it still gives access to higher mission levels, better refining etc)
Standings are still required for reprocessing & refining except if you want to use an array at a POS. Sounds like more 'dumbing down' of the game doesn't it. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
561
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:40:00 -
[1216] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: Well, we know that the exact cost will be shown before you run the job. What we don't know if if you can put together "hypothetical" manufacturing runs to see what the cost would be.
Of course they aren't going to do that, no. It's developer effort. I will be able to see what the current cost is for a manufacturing slot but what am I supposed to do if it's now too high? Move my stuff - move my POS, what? How often am I supposed to do this? I have hundreds of containers with BPCs in, are CCP going to make it easier to move my business from one system to the next? Are they going to make it safer? Of course they aren't.
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
868
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:48:00 -
[1217] - Quote
"So player corporations will now have the choice between the safety of NPC stations or the efficiency of Starbases to operate. The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked or be reactive enough to take the blueprints out before they go into reinforced mode.
We are aware of the significance of this change and do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner, but we do feel it to be a good trade-off for smaller blueprints."
This tells me that CCP is totally clueless.
Industrial corps do everything they can to avoid war, therefore, they have NO PvPers.
There is nothing you can do to get 10 guys in exhumers to go defend their POS against any corp that is a real risk to a POS.
New EVE industry... cranking out BPCs from you high sec large, super hardened POS.
This is going to be a HUGE pain. huge, huge, huge pain
And it is NOT going to have the stated effect.
You can not force us to play the way you want us to play, because you can not force us to play.
PvPers need to be content to go PvP against other players that want to PvP. You are never going to get industrialists to play in a way that makes them easy kills for PvPers.
Oh, it would be easy to kill industrialists if CCP would just change..... WRONG! Industrialists will just change what they do, so that they remain safe.
We're not suddenly going to jump into PvP ships and become easy kills for skilled PvPers. Never going to happen! |
Arana Mirelin
Te'Rava Industries
35
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:48:00 -
[1218] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Well, we know that the exact cost will be shown before you run the job. What we don't know if if you can put together "hypothetical" manufacturing runs to see what the cost would be.
Of course they aren't going to do that, no. It's developer effort. I will be able to see what the current cost is for a manufacturing slot but what am I supposed to do if it's now too high? Move my stuff - move my POS, what? How often am I supposed to do this? I have hundreds of containers with BPCs in, are CCP going to make it easier to move my business from one system to the next? Are they going to make it safer? Of course they aren't.
Your best bet for any kind of answer is to wait for the dev blog about pricing. My quick read, at least inferred from what was said, is that I expect the price to be based on the activity at the location in question. So public slots are going to be at the whim of everyone else there as well. For POS arrays, it is probably more controllable for a solo or small team industrialist.
Again, all of this is speculation only for now, and the changes are not coming tomorrow. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
872
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:57:00 -
[1219] - Quote
Will the cost changes be such that a 0% increase in cost is equal to the current amount of production slots being used and after all the slots are filled only then will you get the 1-14% increase in cost? Will future stations' 0% costs be equal to current capacity and only after that will the cost increases occur, or is overall future "capacity" being lowered with increased costs?
For example, if a current station currently has 10 slots and only 7 are being used, then the future station would have a 0% cost increase. After 10 jobs are installed in the future summer station, the 11th job would then get a 1-14% cost increase? Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! << |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:57:00 -
[1220] - Quote
I presume NPC tax costs to do jobs at NPC stations are going to have to be increased a lot from their current levels to rival the costs of POS fuel production otherwise there may be no point in running a research POS in high sec. |
|
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
561
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:58:00 -
[1221] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: PvPers need to be content to go PvP against other players that want to PvP. You are never going to get industrialists to play in a way that makes them easy kills for PvPers.
CCP could even things up by allowing us industrialists to fit tracking devices to the items we make and/or to booby-trap them so they random explode, taking out the player with them. Otherwise, Indy PvP is Indy PvP, same but different. We PvP on price, efficiency, cost, market manipulation.
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 14:04:00 -
[1222] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Banko Mato wrote: Except that your additional cost of tY might well turn out to be zero (or near zero) for the same number of jobs your POS can currently handle. With the benefit, that you can install even more jobs, but then your tY will indeed increase. Right now however all this is speculation until CCP releases exact numbers ;)
As a business person, I don't like uncertainty. Whether or not my current or planned run is profitable depends to a large extent upon certain costs I know I'm going to incur. For me the cost is crystallised when I actually buy the moon goo or components or minerals. Everything else is fixed. But now it seems CCP are going to introduce a variable cost factor I have no way of predicting. It's really quite obnoxious. Well, we know that the exact cost will be shown before you run the job. What we don't know if if you can put together "hypothetical" manufacturing runs to see what the cost would be.
you can, they said so in a post |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
562
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 14:08:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Firvain wrote: you can, they said so in a post
For a single run, yes. But the costs will scale if you put on, say, 20 or 40 runs at the same time, as one often does. Is that cost predictable?
Another problem I have: If slots are being removed, are they being retained at POS's? If not, how is that going to work?
So much confusion. But from what I've read so far it's going to make the whole business intensely annoying to manage. |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Card Shark Industries
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 14:36:00 -
[1224] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Well, we know that the exact cost will be shown before you run the job. What we don't know if if you can put together "hypothetical" manufacturing runs to see what the cost would be.
Of course they aren't going to do that, no. It's developer effort. I will be able to see what the current cost is for a manufacturing slot but what am I supposed to do if it's now too high? Move my stuff - move my POS, what? How often am I supposed to do this? I have hundreds of containers with BPCs in, are CCP going to make it easier to move my business from one system to the next? Are they going to make it safer? Of course they aren't. Agre thers will be to mutch work being a industrialist in hi sec nowe,mowe your production matrials to different stations and have to get finnished products from different stations aarrrg Time=monny,,,,lower copy time sounds good but marked will change faster and more items made dont give anyon a better price margin on trade,And 1 more thing ccp want to make eve marked look like real life marked,but i dont have a stock of skilled workers doing calculation or hauling may stuff.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 14:43:00 -
[1225] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:I do hope they are looking at a full mission overhaul now for maybe the winter release since standings grind is no longer as necessary (though it still gives access to higher mission levels, better refining etc) Standings are still required for reprocessing & refining except if you want to use an array at a POS. Sounds like more 'dumbing down' of the game doesn't it. Standings are also still required to work for higher level mission agents. Standings are still required to reduce taxes incurred from trading on the market. Have I missed any other current reasons to have high standings ?
Research agent level, although that needs addressing during the S&I changes...you get nowhere near enough datacores foor it to be useful to invention, I proposed a while back that RP can be used directly in an invention job at a preferential rate, though you could still create a datacore and sell it if you chose. |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Card Shark Industries
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 14:45:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:What? Did someone just say scaling taxes apply to POS owners? Really? My manufacturing and research at the POS I'm paying 450m a month in fuel to run... is going to be taxed?
Or do you mean starting a job on the station floor, not at the actual POS? Scaling costs will apply to all, just think of it as overhead on machine refits/repairs/scaling up plant lines etc. No. I'm thinking of it as a tax on manufacturing, additional to the existing cost I already incur running a POS and one I cannot escape even with several highly skilled characters. It implies I have to run around all over the place to find the lowest (temporary) manufacturing cost. That might be different to the place where I can get the lowest research cost. All of my stuff gets spread around. I can no longer have a "base of operations" if I care about my costs (which I do). I have to manage it all and it's going to be a gigantic pain in the butt. But it isnt tax, thats what you are wrong about. A factory can churn out 50 jobs per day at cost X what is now. But said factory in teh future can churn out 100 jobs at cost Y, but no one said it cant do just 50 jobs at cost X still. Just when you get over the amount it is ment for scaling cost should come into play. No point in getting all angry and huffpuff abou tthese changes when we only have half of the info. Look forward to that next devblog where they'll go more in detail about that scaling cost and how it works exactly. if 50 jobs turn into cost Y and not stay at cost X, then sure go ahead and be all angry lol so way making this changes at all if non hawe to mowe lol |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 14:53:00 -
[1227] - Quote
I'd also suggest we wait and see what the whole 'team' concept is too...could be good and mitigate lots of the effort..could be horrid :D |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Card Shark Industries
12
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:09:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Lucy Riraille wrote:Although I like the announcement that Industry gets an overhaul, which it nedded pretty badly, I am somewhat confused about CCP's masterplan to whip any player who wishes to do some things efficiently into sov nulsec!
This is just a plain bad idea. We know that CCP just loves nulsec and wants as many players as possible to go there.
BUT
Very few players live in Nulsec because of ****** game mechanics! Poor POS Management, awoxers, afk cloaky neuts,
Now industrial slots in Hisec will become absirdly expensive while Mittens sweethearts will be able to use outpost slots for far less? Will all the hordes of nulsec industrialists be able to satisfy demand of Hisec?
NO!
Simply put: there are too few ibdustrialists in nulsec. And, as GSF and Mittens officially **** on prodders and miners, this change will have a tremendous impact on EVE ingame economics.
Unfortunately, CCP Management fails to understand that as Nulsec residents are simply a minority of eve players and that the majority of Industry and prodding takes place in Hisec and that this has been successfully so for many years, CCP executives do everything they can to nerf Hisec, the home of the majority of EVE players in a way that hopefully a few thousand industrialists will look at the changes, evaluate them and then throw their BPOs in the trash, quit their accounts and leave EVE for the elder scrolls online.
Ice has become a limited resource, thx to mechanic changes, Fuel prices raised a bit as icemining outside hisec became so profitable that the demand on the market could still b fulfilled.
Now every newbie plaer will be able to put a pos anywhere he likes. Why shouldn't there be any standing needed? At least some effort or at least someone elses effort (POS standing service) was needed to have a POS. Corps payed rent for offices at stations (ISK DRAIN, good against inflation) so thexy could do research and produciton independently from the limitd availability of slots at stations. People used to laugh at other people who accidentally or deliberately stored their bPos inside a POS.
Why do you change this before putting POS management right?
Why do you want to punish poeple who have spent BILLIONS of ISK in BPOs research time and caring and refuelling of POSses? In order to get better defense capabilities, will we be able to get starbase defense management as a starter skill? With no number of controllable pos modules perhaps?
Game development in EVE lacks a clear transparent und publicly advertised goal!
On the one hand, CCP removes effort/skill requirements for some things so that new player might have easier access (i.E. T1 industrial revamp and other examples). On the other hand highly specialized chars (time intensive skillings) are hit by the nerf hammer as the activites they trained for years now will be far profitable.
Does CCP wants us all to sit in Nulsec, permagrinding anos for faction and officer loot, making billions of isk? Like all the bot ratters in deklein?
Why does CCP wants to increase the income of all these nulsec RMT, that make hundreds of thousands of They only love more things that allowe more things to be blown up.they are stedy but slowly adjusting hi sec to be more like low sec.they just want to se howe fare they can go before loosing subs so they take small steps ich update,if all nerf to hi sec and indy pilots that hawe been don sins i started had been don in 1 patch like upcomming patch they will hawe lost a lott more subs i think |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
151
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:16:00 -
[1229] - Quote
Abstract: Efficiency matters. CCP is creating large enough differences in efficiency that many methods may be unprofitable. Queue whining about transportation costs.
EVE_Wiki wrote:Production Efficiency - The most critical skill for any production character. After you've bought it, train it until you reach Level 5. Production Efficiency is the single biggest must-have skill to be effective and competitive when producing goods, and unlike many skills, the payoff for reaching Level 5 is worth it. ... Each level trained in this skill will reduce the skill based material multiplier of 1.25 by 4%, which effectively translates to a 5% reduction in materials used to manufacture items per skill level.
A common mistake for young industrialists is to avoid that long level 5 train. They then do their calculations and discover that they cannot profitably make things. The last 5% reduction in material costs is required to make production profitable for many items particularly T1 items. Efficiency matters.
CCP is discussing adding a 0-14% congestion fee based on "base price." As pointed out to a young industrialist that spread is sufficient to make things unprofitable. The EVE players will find the one way (or two if we are lucky) to profitably make those items. Yes everyone can make things more expensively but a real industrialist does not worry so much about the fools throwing away money.
Who will have the efficiency to produce things the one way? We can guess that Jita Station manufacturing will be around the 14% mark. Perhaps a fully upgraded player owned Amarr outpost will be nearly 0%. We don't know where POSes will be. We don't know if low or null sec will get special bonuses. Crucially we don't know the formula for how fast the number of production jobs will push up the cost of production. It is possible that one fully upgraded Amarr outpost will be able to outproduce high sec with acceptable margins. CCP does not even need to intend that consequence they just need to make a small mistake in numbers.
Transportation costs may significantly influence final costs. Even with a high efficiency null sec might have problems with transportation. I expect more whining about how hard it is to move things and how freighter sizes (or tanks) must be increased. |
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:35:00 -
[1230] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Firvain wrote: you can, they said so in a post
For a single run, yes. But the costs will scale if you put on, say, 20 or 40 runs at the same time, as one often does. Is that cost predictable? Another problem I have: If slots are being removed, are they being retained at POS's? If not, how is that going to work? So much confusion. But from what I've read so far it's going to make the whole business intensely annoying to manage.
It will be interesting to see projected costs, for example the T2 Invention process, a process which recommends the using of max run T1 bpc's to ensure optimum runs of the T2 bpc's in this case probably around 3 to 8 runs per T2 bpc copy, allowing for a players skills amongst other things. In this example those new Hull repair drones are max runs of 1500 per bpc copy plus getting the optimum ME and PE costs onto the BPO first, all thess extra costs will apply not just for this one simple example item but everything that is made will have to be passed onto the consumer, THAT MEANS ALL OF YOU PILOTS! are you listening out there.
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:36:00 -
[1231] - Quote
I'm thinking there will be a 'Lazy Event Horizon', a zone where people can't be bothered going further out and having to haul stuff back to Jita/Dixie etc...these systems will become the benchmark for the congestion fee that will be tolerated... |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5211
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:37:00 -
[1232] - Quote
Unezka Turigahl wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote: The sand is being drained away from the sandbox. That's all I'm saying. Eve is slowly starting to look like a theme park with no barriers of entry, no cooperation or interaction required to achieve serious results or goals.
Barriers of entry are more of a themepark trait, not sandbox. There is nothing sandboxy about having to grind through a billion quests to unlock the ability for your character to set up a factory.
You never had to. The standings grind was only for anchoring towers in hi sec. To anchor a tower in null sec you just have to reach an arrangement with the players out there. To anchor a tower in lowsec you just have to not draw attention to yourself. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Demetrius Hauber
H4LP
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:40:00 -
[1233] - Quote
I have an issue with the new refining changes, why is refining instant? why aren't their refinery jobs with durations? why doesn't CCP want to give industrialist another bottle neck to manage and profit off of? |
Hildebrandt Koeppl
Hybrid Flare Project Immersion
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:44:00 -
[1234] - Quote
How will the changes affect sharing POS capabilities on a alliance level - or even public. Richt now I can share my research slots with ym alliance. after the change they would have to install the BPO inside the POS, which is - as far as I understand - not possible for players not in my corp and with the right roles to access POS modules. The ability to use a POS - or several - together in a alliance is a strong incentive to bind together - how will this be handled in the future? |
Menaiya Zamayid
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:44:00 -
[1235] - Quote
I do not like most of the idea's presented here. I don't know why people get this idea that BPO's are "cost-less." They are a significant investment cost. the material costs did not go away.
To build anything you have a really two ways to go about doing it. Either purchase a BPC pack that someone else already produced the requisite research time and made a copy for a nominal fee. (We all know that market is saturated to the point that unless you have extremely long researched BPO's to make copy from you won't make a dime.) and then just build the item direct.
Or you invest in a BPO. Research it yourself (if by some miracle under the current system you can fly a research slot somewhere anywhere, or own your own POS To do research which has its own issues with the current system)
The POS System as it currently stands is extremely broken in that All POS's are launched for Corporation with no real way to set up individual POS Access Control Lists."
So Now you want me To take my Expensively purchased BPO's that already cost god knows what (please do NOT mention Procurer to me right now) to go research in a pos in the vain hope of getting some of the isk I invested back.
The main complaint here is, you've already made it difficult to break into the invention and manufacturing. Now you're making it even more costly to the new guy.
Pros: No more wait time for a slot.
Cons: More costs on something already hideously expensive to do. The risk with BPO's is the amount of isk you invested into them. More risk of theft. Making industry even less profitable to the new guy not part of a major organization.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3084
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:56:00 -
[1236] - Quote
Menaiya Zamayid wrote:I do not like most of the idea's presented here. I don't know why people get this idea that BPO's are "cost-less." They are a significant investment cost. the material costs did not go away.
To build anything you have a really two ways to go about doing it. Either purchase a BPC pack that someone else already produced the requisite research time and made a copy for a nominal fee. (We all know that market is saturated to the point that unless you have extremely long researched BPO's to make copy from you won't make a dime.) and then just build the item direct.
Or you invest in a BPO. Research it yourself (if by some miracle under the current system you can fly a research slot somewhere anywhere, or own your own POS To do research which has its own issues with the current system)
The POS System as it currently stands is extremely broken in that All POS's are launched for Corporation with no real way to set up individual POS Access Control Lists."
So Now you want me To take my Expensively purchased BPO's that already cost god knows what (please do NOT mention Procurer to me right now) to go research in a pos in the vain hope of getting some of the isk I invested back.
The main complaint here is, you've already made it difficult to break into the invention and manufacturing. Now you're making it even more costly to the new guy.
Pros: No more wait time for a slot.
Cons: More costs on something already hideously expensive to do. The risk with BPO's is the amount of isk you invested into them. More risk of theft. Making industry even less profitable to the new guy not part of a major organization.
Or research it in a station, with no wait time. Sure, there will be an elevated (no idea how elevated, as this is in a later blog) cost, but it'll be cheaper than launching a whole pos and fueling it, just to research that blueprint. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:01:00 -
[1237] - Quote
What is your plan for T2 BPOs?
|
Sigras
Conglomo
732
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:05:00 -
[1238] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote: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. All extra materials are turned into regular materials, that will indeed be now affected by skills and waste. Except for Tech I ships and items, as such:
- You should never see a Paladin require 2 Apocalypses to build
- You should never see a Large shield Extender II require 0.75 Large Shield Extender I to build
So the items like Silos, are they going to get cheaper because of research? or are you going to increase their required materials by 10% so they stay the same after research? |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:21:00 -
[1239] - Quote
Okay, all slots are removed including those for labs/arrays. So there will no longer be a need for more than one of each lab or array type at a POS, am I right? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3864
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:22:00 -
[1240] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: CCP giveth and taketh away.
Sure, Sov Nullsec might reap some benefits form the industry expansion, making nullsec industry more profitable is generally a GOOD thing. I do my industry in highsec because there is little benefit to doing it in nullsec.
Remember, most industry takes place in highsec, and I doubt industry is going to massively uproot itself and move to nullsec. And also remmeber, a Sov revamp is on the to-do list, so exciting times will be here.
Let's be clear here. CCP taketh from high sec and giveth to sov null sec. And if you believe that the cartels will let any sov change come through that does not benefit them, well, you know better than that. When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way. Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency. The only thing that null won't have is the trade hubs, because the majority of the player base is still high sec players. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
I'm alright with nullsec being better than highsec. I firmly believe this game should provide benefits on two specific paradigms: Risk vs Reward and Effort vs Reward.
After balancing industry, I'm confident they will rebalance Sov to remove the massive imbalances inherent within the system.
|
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
151
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:23:00 -
[1241] - Quote
Rapscallion Jones wrote:Okay, all slots are removed including those for labs/arrays. So there will no longer be a need for more than one of each lab or array type at a POS, am I right?
Unknown. Additional arrays might reduce the congestion charges for your POS, or not. |
Kaius Fero
31
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:37:00 -
[1242] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:..... I seriously hope that you will not be another fail CSM member like the ones so far, there is just enough kick in the ass for indy people already. Or if CCP wants us out, just let us know.
Somebody mentioned ESO earlier.. maybe I'm missing something, but manufacturing in ESO? I rather preffer GW2 for that, at least the market, inventions and even the manufacturing is the closest to what we have in EVE. Ofc.. it's still a themepark, but hey... |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1850
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:42:00 -
[1243] - Quote
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, *Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal. Oh ISD, how we love you so much!!!! New player experience, more highsec PvE missions, casual play, balance, counters to AFK cloaking, expanding the NEX store, and Power Projection.
Azami Nevinyrall for CSM9! |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
318
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:50:00 -
[1244] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:Refining is getting a major nerf. Mineral compression is going away completely. instead there will only be 2 viable ways to move huge amounts of trit around in any sensible fashion. Rorqual->JF in Low/Null -or- Compression Array ->Freighter ->Station in High. Post patch no one is going to be shipping trit in an industrial that does any kind of capital production. Its going to have to stay in compressed rock form till it hits it final destination and then refined there with a specialized toon. Since Compression Arrays will be able to be anchored anywhere in High it only stands to reason that CCP needs to have the veld miners be able to use those arrays by also being able to compress their ore for logistics purposes. If all the veld miners had to suddenly start grinding standing to Anchor a stick what do you think would happen to the trit market and then New Eden industry as a whole? If the refining and mineral compression changes were happening at different times they might not have to do away with standings. My guess is that all this is leading to POS code changes down the road but they cant rewrite everything at once so some sacrifices have to be made to have the game at least be functional.
Thank you for an interesting point, however I think it doesn't negate my argument.
If miner corp wants to be efficient they would need to do something about it. They would need to either ask their friends with a POS for refining/compression - or buy a a corp with standings from players - or find a corp with a tower near them and offer them a deal for those services. If an individual miner wants to be efficient he'll have to find a good corp to join or work really hard and try to get it all himself. They would need to setup networks and find contacts in different locations to move the compressed ore about HS. If they refused to work together in such manner they can always just sell their ore on the Market and other entrepreneurs will gladly buy, compress and re-sell it.
All those possibilities for interaction, enterprises and group activities have been slimmed down to those who are ignorant of the mechanics or don't have time to run a POS themselves. And those type of people usually just sell to the market and don't add any meaningful interaction to the game.
As far as nullsec bears are concerned, their HS miners would need to either follow the same logic, or they can buy it on the market or they can always mine it locally or find corporations in HS and make deals with them instead of ganking them. The flavors of interaction were much more varied.
With standing requirement gone, anyone who just created a 1 man corp can setup a POS and run his own show without ever interacting with anyone, and that's what I don't like about it. POS used to be a goal you strive for, now they turned it into an expensive mobile structure. Things in the game have value because they're hard to attain. The concept of owning a POS just got devalued from a corp wide effort to a cost of a battleship for a single pilot.
Lastly about the code.... really? With everything wrong with the POS, I'm sure standings are their least concern. Unless they're planning to re-do it by thinning it down to a stick in space first. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
91
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:56:00 -
[1245] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:I do hope they are looking at a full mission overhaul now for maybe the winter release since standings grind is no longer as necessary (though it still gives access to higher mission levels, better refining etc) Standings are still required for reprocessing & refining except if you want to use an array at a POS. Sounds like more 'dumbing down' of the game doesn't it. Standings are also still required to work for higher level mission agents. Standings are still required to reduce taxes incurred from trading on the market. Have I missed any other current reasons to have high standings ?
There is a lot of confusion in this thread between faction standings and corp standings. Except for a very small maximal efficiency niche in your third point vis-a-vis market tax, you are talking about corp standing use cases, not faction standing (unmodified at that). You also forgot to mention jumpclones, but also a corp standing use case. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
318
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:58:00 -
[1246] - Quote
Unezka Turigahl wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote: The sand is being drained away from the sandbox. That's all I'm saying. Eve is slowly starting to look like a theme park with no barriers of entry, no cooperation or interaction required to achieve serious results or goals.
Barriers of entry are more of a themepark trait, not sandbox. There is nothing sandboxy about having to grind through a billion quests to unlock the ability for your character to set up a factory.
Well, I'm talking about the last few expansions in general, but this is part of it. You used to have to work the foundation for your sandcastle, now it's already there for you. You used to have to design it's blueprint yourself, now it's provided on a silver platter. Starting to look like the Lego sets that you just have to piece together rather than a bunch of random blocks and being able to create your own stuff.
Things used to require teamwork and effort and they had value. A lot of activities and interactions are being devalued right now.
Regarding standings, I said that the grind wasn't a good choice for industrial characters, the way PVE wasn't ideal for pirates and PVP players. That's why they should have used the opportunity to create interactions there, not remove it. |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
46
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 17:01:00 -
[1247] - Quote
Not sure if this has been covered by anyone, the thread is stupid long and at this point i'm not going to waste my time reading all of it.
Station Component Blueprints - all their materials are currently in extra materials, this i'm assuming was to remove the need to research them - they are all perfect @ level 0. - Example Station Construction Parts blueprint, also i was going to use the evelopedia for a visual but its out of date and shows pre-planetary interaction values.
Small thought for the removal of faction standings for anchoring pos's - have faction standing affect the pos fuel consumption similiar to null sec sov. Giving some reward to high sec faction hugging industrial mission runners. Example 2.5% reduction per 1pt of faction standing so max of 25% reduction if they can achieve 10.0 standings, which should be rather hard to achieve outside a 1 man corp. Maths for this on a large non-faction tower comes down to 1 block per faction point, that being said i picked a 2.5% value because the math works well with a large non-faction tower, all other towers it becomes less simple.
Slot removal on pos's basically the only reasoning i can think of for this is the slot system coding is getting completely defunct in this patch and supporting legacy code and new code doing the same thing is near impossible.
I'm a bit worried about what the *costs* are going to be for running copies. As it seems *nothings free anymore even if you own it* concept is going to get shoved down our throats for the sake of isk sinks. I'm guessing that there is going to be a percentage value of a BPO's original cost incurred when making a copy, since everyone playing it *safe* will then be copying at a secure facility either player owned or NPC owned.
Also could we get the installations tab in science and industry fixed so you can't see build times on assembly lines that you don't have access to? This has been around since dominion and is a fairly terrible / mechanic / bug / exploit that gives out intel that should not be given out. Example - as a member of a corp you cannot even see what jobs are in build without a role. But you can look at installation on alliance and can deduce what is in build by everyone in alliance. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
318
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 17:06:00 -
[1248] - Quote
Hildebrandt Koeppl wrote:How will the changes affect sharing POS capabilities on a alliance level - or even public. Richt now I can share my research slots with ym alliance. after the change they would have to install the BPO inside the POS, which is - as far as I understand - not possible for players not in my corp and with the right roles to access POS modules. The ability to use a POS - or several - together in a alliance is a strong incentive to bind together - how will this be handled in the future?
We'll have to wait on the POS dev blog to know for sure but I highly doubt they'll do anything to that effect. I think the days of sharing labs with alliances are pretty much over. And here I was hoping they'd allow us to share slots with the public. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
318
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 17:34:00 -
[1249] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Banko Mato wrote: Except that your additional cost of tY might well turn out to be zero (or near zero) for the same number of jobs your POS can currently handle. With the benefit, that you can install even more jobs, but then your tY will indeed increase. Right now however all this is speculation until CCP releases exact numbers ;)
As a business person, I don't like uncertainty. Whether or not my current or planned run is profitable depends to a large extent upon certain costs I know I'm going to incur. For me the cost is crystallised when I actually buy the moon goo or components or minerals. Everything else is fixed. But now it seems CCP are going to introduce a variable cost factor I have no way of predicting. It's really quite obnoxious.
^This!
When you're running a large scale industrial operation, you need to know your costs ahead of time. Not have them vary day to day, hour by hour. This was the advantage of the POS. Now using a POS puts us in a disadvantage anyway you put it. Even if cost scaling stays stable enough not to affect anything, we either have to put in a lot more effort and risk by placing BPOs at the POS, or we have to put in less risk but still more effort and headache by having to copy items we want to build first. Why do I mention 'risk' for station copying? Because of the possibility that variable copy costs in station will no longer make it profitable to manufacture that item.
Overall, it's making it really easy for an individual to get into Industry, so more solo pilots who never want to put in much effort or interact with anyone will be able to do industry casually, almost anywhere, anytime. This comes at the expense of established industrialists though. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3085
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:03:00 -
[1250] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Banko Mato wrote: Except that your additional cost of tY might well turn out to be zero (or near zero) for the same number of jobs your POS can currently handle. With the benefit, that you can install even more jobs, but then your tY will indeed increase. Right now however all this is speculation until CCP releases exact numbers ;)
As a business person, I don't like uncertainty. Whether or not my current or planned run is profitable depends to a large extent upon certain costs I know I'm going to incur. For me the cost is crystallised when I actually buy the moon goo or components or minerals. Everything else is fixed. But now it seems CCP are going to introduce a variable cost factor I have no way of predicting. It's really quite obnoxious. ^This! When you're running a large scale industrial operation, you need to know your costs ahead of time. Not have them vary day to day, hour by hour. This was the advantage of the POS. Now using a POS puts us in a disadvantage anyway you put it. Even if cost scaling stays stable enough not to affect anything, we either have to put in a lot more effort and risk by placing BPOs at the POS, or we have to put in less risk but still more effort and headache by having to copy items we want to build first. Why do I mention 'risk' for station copying? Because of the possibility that variable copy costs in station will no longer make it profitable to manufacture that item. Overall, it's making it really easy for an individual to get into Industry, so more solo pilots who never want to put in much effort or interact with anyone will be able to do industry casually, almost anywhere, anytime. This comes at the expense of established industrialists though.
Using a POS does let you know your costs ahead of time. Even with cost scaling. Because you don't have random non-members putting in jobs, and driving the cost up in a non-predictable fashion. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6989
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:04:00 -
[1251] - Quote
i look forward to crushing all of the ~industrialists~ who are unable to adapt to even small changes
the weaselior division of Goonswarm Incorporated will soon be dominating all of your old markets Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
153
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:08:00 -
[1252] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Using a POS does let you know your costs ahead of time. Even with cost scaling. Because you don't have random non-members putting in jobs, and driving the cost up in a non-predictable fashion.
We don't know this because, congestion costs may be effected by a system wide job count in some way. |
Jed Clampett
The Order Of Viision
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:09:00 -
[1253] - Quote
Overall most the changes are "positive" even generous.
BUT POS compression arrays do NOT address the main hauling issues of miners hi sec. You have already hauled ore from belt - whether to refine at station or POS or to sell or to compress. Hauling from belts or ore/ice anomalies to first unload is the primary miner's transportation issue everywhere a Rorqual is not practical.
So POS Compression is clearly aimed primarily at ore traders and WH where they haul out raw ore. From what I gather compression is for corps without access to someone with decent refining skills (which should be rare in POS owning corp). Otherwise refining would be a better more direct solution given the new high efficiency POS refining structures being introduced and that both compression and refining are instant. Miners themselves only benefit when for some reason its worth hauling a second time from a POS before refining and freighters cannot make enough runs. IF CCP wants to change that equation they might want to reintroduce the concept that POS with limited power must "slow cook" ore to refine it. Then if compression was <5 minutes to activate (crude gravitational implosion/space folding) and refining took 30 minutes (the old 4 hours for very limited amount was ridiculous), there would be real choices to make.
I also note ore refine skills are ALREADY required to get 100% refine at quite few high sec stations and most low sec. 35% base refine is not uncommon and I have seen 25% in high sec. I haven't surveyed low sec as well but 50% base actually seems uncommon.
PS
Is there a plan to raise bunches Empire NPC stations up to the 50% standard? Just on the theory Empire factions had been wealthy and establishing stations much longer than player corp particularly in high sec. Probably should have higher chance of lower yield as security drops off and size of NPC corp owning station drops. ( I assume that faction boost |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
403
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:16:00 -
[1254] - Quote
Jed Clampett wrote:Overall most the changes are "positive" even generous.
BUT POS compression arrays do NOT address the main hauling issues of miners in hi sec. You have already hauled ore from belt - whether to refine at station or POS or to sell or to compress. Hauling from belts or ore/ice anomalies to first unload is the primary miner's transportation issue everywhere a Rorqual is not practical.
The easement of POSes in highsec will help ameliorate this. Instead of hauling from the belt to a station in highsec, you simply haul to your POS and compress in situ. In fact, given that highsec and POS refineries are substandard compared to low/nullsec, it behooves you to do this and sell your compressed ore on the market.
That being said, I fully support dropping the barrier of entry to compression even further and allow it as a station service. Being able to compress ore is too important to the new mineral economy to have it be gated in such a (newly trivialized) manner. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
318
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:19:00 -
[1255] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Banko Mato wrote: Except that your additional cost of tY might well turn out to be zero (or near zero) for the same number of jobs your POS can currently handle. With the benefit, that you can install even more jobs, but then your tY will indeed increase. Right now however all this is speculation until CCP releases exact numbers ;)
As a business person, I don't like uncertainty. Whether or not my current or planned run is profitable depends to a large extent upon certain costs I know I'm going to incur. For me the cost is crystallised when I actually buy the moon goo or components or minerals. Everything else is fixed. But now it seems CCP are going to introduce a variable cost factor I have no way of predicting. It's really quite obnoxious. ^This! When you're running a large scale industrial operation, you need to know your costs ahead of time. Not have them vary day to day, hour by hour. This was the advantage of the POS. Now using a POS puts us in a disadvantage anyway you put it. Even if cost scaling stays stable enough not to affect anything, we either have to put in a lot more effort and risk by placing BPOs at the POS, or we have to put in less risk but still more effort and headache by having to copy items we want to build first. Why do I mention 'risk' for station copying? Because of the possibility that variable copy costs in station will no longer make it profitable to manufacture that item. Overall, it's making it really easy for an individual to get into Industry, so more solo pilots who never want to put in much effort or interact with anyone will be able to do industry casually, almost anywhere, anytime. This comes at the expense of established industrialists though. Using a POS does let you know your costs ahead of time. Even with cost scaling. Because you don't have random non-members putting in jobs, and driving the cost up in a non-predictable fashion.
Yes, but I addressed the other issues with it in the same post you quoted. It's either more effort/headache/risk or more effort/headache/no risk to BPO but risk to profit. It sucks either way. |
Tora Hamaji
Republic University Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:21:00 -
[1256] - Quote
- Add a new sizes of POS facilities:- Medium Size Lab/manufactory(10 slots of each)
- Large Size (30 slots )
- Make a Central Facilities Control module that combines all the slots from the pos in one interface!
- Make it possible to install jobs with from the Personal Hangar Array!
- Also, 8 divisions is not enough to run some indy corps, while other corps need 0. perhaps it's time to update that piece of code to let us choose wallet and hangar divisions?
|
Oxide Ammar
94
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:22:00 -
[1257] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:i look forward to crushing all of the ~industrialists~ who are unable to adapt to even small changes
the weaselior division of Goonswarm Incorporated will soon be dominating all of your old markets
I'm sure this will look perfect in your RL resume when you are applying to job, pls update your linkedin with your new skills like crushing and goon industrialist.
where the hell these ppl come from ? |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
153
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:25:00 -
[1258] - Quote
Tora Hamaji wrote:- Add a new sizes of POS facilities: - Medium Size Lab/manufactory(10 slots of each)
- Large Size (30 slots )
- Make a Central Facilities Control module that combines all the slots from the pos in one interface! - Make it possible to install jobs with from the Personal Hangar Array! - Also, 8 divisions is not enough to run some indy corps, while other corps need 0. perhaps it's time to update that piece of code to let us choose wallet and hangar divisions?
When CCP told us about the refining and compression changes, they also mentioned modifications and additions to POS modules. I would guess that there will at least be some modifications here as well. Of course we cannot rate anything by slots any more (no more slots). |
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Eschelon Directive Universal Consortium
63
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:32:00 -
[1259] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dast Aldurald wrote:ok, all this is interesting but: 1) no standing needed for pos? really I have a suggestion that would let CCP reward those who (like me too) grinded standings or have standings-raise professions and so on: Have the new POS slots fees depend (in a minor way) also from standings. So, everyone can put up a POS but those with standings get a discount. Voil+á, two birds with one stone!
After having invested time and actual RL money training a few characters to be able to run a HS lab without penalizing myself not being in the same corp as my friends i think there should be some reward for grinding these standings. |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
187
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:50:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Weaselior wrote:i look forward to crushing all of the ~industrialists~ who are unable to adapt to even small changes
the weaselior division of Goonswarm Incorporated will soon be dominating all of your old markets I'm sure this will look perfect in your RL resume when you are applying to job, pls update your linkedin with your new skills like crushing and goon industrialist. where the hell these ppl come from ?
Goon are stupid. Need I say more? |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
403
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:15:00 -
[1261] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:Weaselior wrote:i look forward to crushing all of the ~industrialists~ who are unable to adapt to even small changes
the weaselior division of Goonswarm Incorporated will soon be dominating all of your old markets I'm sure this will look perfect in your RL resume when you are applying to job, pls update your linkedin with your new skills like crushing and goon industrialist. where the hell these ppl come from ? Goon are stupid. Need I say more? Hey, ISD dudes. How's it going? Naw, I didn't need anything -- just making small talk. Your day been going okay? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:18:00 -
[1262] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:Weaselior wrote:i look forward to crushing all of the ~industrialists~ who are unable to adapt to even small changes
the weaselior division of Goonswarm Incorporated will soon be dominating all of your old markets I'm sure this will look perfect in your RL resume when you are applying to job, pls update your linkedin with your new skills like crushing and goon industrialist. where the hell these ppl come from ? Goon are stupid. Need I say more?
You mean smart enough to adapt? |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
2881
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:18:00 -
[1263] - Quote
This would be the perfect opportunity to put more weight on corporation standings by using it to reduce taxes for jobs by a not insignificant level. Though faction standing should not be as powerful as corporation standing, merely more universal. Maybe split the maximum tax reduction to 75%/25% corp/faction standing. Faction standing could still be applied to POS lines making the grind still useful. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Oxide Ammar
94
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:23:00 -
[1264] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:Weaselior wrote:i look forward to crushing all of the ~industrialists~ who are unable to adapt to even small changes
the weaselior division of Goonswarm Incorporated will soon be dominating all of your old markets I'm sure this will look perfect in your RL resume when you are applying to job, pls update your linkedin with your new skills like crushing and goon industrialist. where the hell these ppl come from ? Goon are stupid. Need I say more? You mean smart enough to adapt?
CCP are feeding you (nullsec community) with golden spoon ...what the hell you are adapting for ? the new wealth income they introduced to you ? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1110
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:27:00 -
[1265] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP are feeding you (nullsec community) with golden spoon ...what the hell you are adapting for ? the new wealth income they are introducing to you ? What is being handed to them that isn't being handed out everywhere else?
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:32:00 -
[1266] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP are feeding you (nullsec community) with golden spoon ...what the hell you are adapting for ? the new wealth income they are introducing to you ? What is being handed to them that isn't being handed out everywhere else?
This i would like to know too. Even though i am in goonswarm, i still do production in highsec aswel, and i am really not too fussed about these changes so far. |
Oxide Ammar
95
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:33:00 -
[1267] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP are feeding you (nullsec community) with golden spoon ...what the hell you are adapting for ? the new wealth income they are introducing to you ? What is being handed to them that isn't being handed out everywhere else?
If it isn't that obvious for you till now, with countless rebuffs to every aspect in game I don't see reason to write wall of text describing what are they. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
404
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:35:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP are feeding you (nullsec community) with golden spoon ...what the hell you are adapting for ? the new wealth income they are introducing to you ? What is being handed to them that isn't being handed out everywhere else? If it isn't that obvious for you till now, with countless rebuffs to every aspect in game I don't see reason to write wall of text describing what are they. So, you don't actually know. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1111
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:38:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP are feeding you (nullsec community) with golden spoon ...what the hell you are adapting for ? the new wealth income they are introducing to you ? What is being handed to them that isn't being handed out everywhere else? If it isn't that obvious for you till now, with countless rebuffs to every aspect in game I don't see reason to write wall of text describing what are they. Ok, so this is where we run into the issue of thinking that counting tick marks on who gets what buff/nerf is in any way an indicator of an imbalance or unfair advantage. It's an argument of someone either too lazy to make their point known or who doesn't actually have one. Until you are willing to put the weight of evidence behind your words don't expect them to convince anyone or have any influence. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6989
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:41:00 -
[1270] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP are feeding you (nullsec community) with golden spoon ...what the hell you are adapting for ? the new wealth income they are introducing to you ? What is being handed to them that isn't being handed out everywhere else? This i would like to know too. Even though i am in goonswarm, i still do production in highsec aswel, and i am really not too fussed about these changes so far. hell both you and i lose out way more on this pos safety thing than any of this rabble Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
577
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:47:00 -
[1271] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: hell both you and i lose out way more on this pos safety thing than any of this rabble
For a guy who spends most of his spare time suicide ganking miners in high sec, I'm surprised.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
404
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:49:00 -
[1272] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Weaselior wrote: hell both you and i lose out way more on this pos safety thing than any of this rabble
For a guy who spends most of his spare time suicide ganking miners in high sec, I'm surprised. It may surprise you that even nullsec dwellers such as me and my colleagues are invested in industry. Probably more than most people in this thread, come to think of it. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Kaius Fero
31
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:00:00 -
[1273] - Quote
Querns wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Weaselior wrote: hell both you and i lose out way more on this pos safety thing than any of this rabble
For a guy who spends most of his spare time suicide ganking miners in high sec, I'm surprised. It may surprise you that even nullsec dwellers such as me and my colleagues are invested in industry. Probably more than most people in this thread, come to think of it. Probably as a slave considering that your CEO hate everything that is industry related. |
Oxide Ammar
95
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:05:00 -
[1274] - Quote
We must be pushed a button or something to bring part of goon forum warriors out to defend these changes....same old ****. |
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
136
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:06:00 -
[1275] - Quote
I still donGÇÖt understand why private POS owners will now have to pay tax when they already pay a huge extra cost in fuel to keep the POS running. Will the new station costs adequately reflect this high cost or should we all start looking for remote systems far away from the hubs to move our industry to? If I can move 10 jumps from Jita and only have to pay 100 million to run all my invention/copy/manufacturing/research jobs AND not have to bother purchasing/manufacturing fuel AND keep my BPOGÇÖs safe inside a station AND not have to log in everyday to look for wardecs AND not have to bother with all the other time consuming aspects of running a POS like hauling fuel, then why would anyone even want a POS in highsec anymore? If you make the cost of using stations as high as using a POS then you block new industrialists from the field.
The only reason people invent or research in a POS is due to the lack of slots in stations. People currently pay as much as $180 million a month in fuel costs for a medium POS plus half a billion for the POS and labs plus have to deal with moving everything in case of wardec and having to haul fuel every month. To top that off, they still have limited slots to use. Now you want to increase that cost by adding tax while also eliminating the lack of slots in stations. I can not possibly imagine how you could drive up the cost of station industry enough to compensate for the cost of a POS and the hassle that goes with it.
With one account and three industry toons, if I run 200 jobs a month and each job cost me 500,000 isk, it would still only cost me 100 mill AND I would no longer have to deal with all the negatives of having a POS plus my BPOGÇÖs would be safe in a station. If I am 10 jumps from Jita and you raise the prices this high, how can new players get into industry? Will you make the station cost even higher to give me a reason to use a POS?
You can say that a POS will have unlimited slots after the changes but will that really make a difference? How many slots can I actually use when copy jobs take 28 days and ME jobs for large ships take 30 days for one or two ME points? Will a person have to have 8 accounts full of industry toons just to make using a POS worthwhile?
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6989
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:08:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:We must be pushed a button or something to bring part of goon forum warriors out to defend these changes....same old ****. you're remarkably poor at defending your meager ideas
the goonswarm economic warfare cabal, the foremost authority on on Eve: Online economics and gameplay has naturally been in this thread from the beginning, dispensing our wise advice and chastising people who say foolish things Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
577
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:09:00 -
[1277] - Quote
Querns wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Weaselior wrote: hell both you and i lose out way more on this pos safety thing than any of this rabble
For a guy who spends most of his spare time suicide ganking miners in high sec, I'm surprised. It may surprise you that even nullsec dwellers such as me and my colleagues are invested in industry. Probably more than most people in this thread, come to think of it.
It doesn't surprise me but as you own large tracts of null you'd be very interested in making it more profitable from a production point of view and HS less so. You don't care all that much. You can take it or leave it. But until I've seen all of the dev blogs and got a broader view of exactly how everything is going to fit together, it's impossible to say whether any of us have a dog in this race or not.
Just remember that taxes change behaviour: You either go and try to find somewhere you'll get taxed less or you just stop doing the thing that's being taxed - you divest, so to speak. I might personally choose the latter. There's an optimal point beyond which an aspect of the game goes from being an interesting little hobby to a pain in the buttox. I don't know if CCP intend to cross that line with this expansion. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:13:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Querns wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Weaselior wrote: hell both you and i lose out way more on this pos safety thing than any of this rabble
For a guy who spends most of his spare time suicide ganking miners in high sec, I'm surprised. It may surprise you that even nullsec dwellers such as me and my colleagues are invested in industry. Probably more than most people in this thread, come to think of it. Probably as a slave considering that your CEO hate everything that is industry related.
what makes you think that? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
404
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:15:00 -
[1279] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Querns wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Weaselior wrote: hell both you and i lose out way more on this pos safety thing than any of this rabble
For a guy who spends most of his spare time suicide ganking miners in high sec, I'm surprised. It may surprise you that even nullsec dwellers such as me and my colleagues are invested in industry. Probably more than most people in this thread, come to think of it. It doesn't surprise me but as you own large tracts of null you'd be very interested in making it more profitable from a production point of view and HS less so. You don't care all that much. You can take it or leave it. But until I've seen all of the dev blogs and got a broader view of exactly how everything is going to fit together, it's impossible to say whether any of us have a dog in this race or not. Just remember that taxes change behaviour: You either go and try to find somewhere you'll get taxed less or you just stop doing the thing that's being taxed - you divest, so to speak. I might personally choose the latter. There's an optimal point beyond which an aspect of the game goes from being an interesting little hobby to a pain in the buttox. I don't know if CCP intend to cross that line with this expansion. It's less about sheer profitability as much as it is viability. For example: every member of the Economic Cabal currently does manufacturing in highsec, except for the items that are physically barred from being produced there. We would enjoy being able to use our space for this, if it was viable. Right now, it's not. It remains to be seen if the removal of slots and congestion fees will significantly affect the viability of nullsec production. I suspect it will, but there's a number of ways it could go south. We all wait with bated breath for the remainder of the devblogs. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:17:00 -
[1280] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Querns wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Weaselior wrote: hell both you and i lose out way more on this pos safety thing than any of this rabble
For a guy who spends most of his spare time suicide ganking miners in high sec, I'm surprised. It may surprise you that even nullsec dwellers such as me and my colleagues are invested in industry. Probably more than most people in this thread, come to think of it. It doesn't surprise me but as you own large tracts of null you'd be very interested in making it more profitable from a production point of view and HS less so. You don't care all that much. You can take it or leave it. But until I've seen all of the dev blogs and got a broader view of exactly how everything is going to fit together, it's impossible to say whether any of us have a dog in this race or not. Just remember that taxes change behaviour: You either go and try to find somewhere you'll get taxed less or you just stop doing the thing that's being taxed - you divest, so to speak. I might personally choose the latter. There's an optimal point beyond which an aspect of the game goes from being an interesting little hobby to a pain in the buttox. I don't know if CCP intend to cross that line with this expansion.
we got a winner here. Exactly there isnt details on these changes yet for a complete picture.
ALl those people that are complaining about now needing to pay to use your assembly arrays in a pos, do you really? where is it said yet? All that is said is that they wont have any slots just like stations and are effected by scaling. But not how they are effected, when do you start paying for them etc |
|
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:19:00 -
[1281] - Quote
edit- everything i wrote got ate boo |
Radgette
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
71
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:23:00 -
[1282] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Querns wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Weaselior wrote: hell both you and i lose out way more on this pos safety thing than any of this rabble
For a guy who spends most of his spare time suicide ganking miners in high sec, I'm surprised. It may surprise you that even nullsec dwellers such as me and my colleagues are invested in industry. Probably more than most people in this thread, come to think of it. It doesn't surprise me but as you own large tracts of null you'd be very interested in making it more profitable from a production point of view and HS less so. You don't care all that much. You can take it or leave it. But until I've seen all of the dev blogs and got a broader view of exactly how everything is going to fit together, it's impossible to say whether any of us have a dog in this race or not. Just remember that taxes change behaviour: You either go and try to find somewhere you'll get taxed less or you just stop doing the thing that's being taxed - you divest, so to speak. I might personally choose the latter. There's an optimal point beyond which an aspect of the game goes from being an interesting little hobby to a pain in the buttox. I don't know if CCP intend to cross that line with this expansion. we got a winner here. Exactly there isnt details on these changes yet for a complete picture. ALl those people that are complaining about now needing to pay to use your assembly arrays in a pos, do you really? where is it said yet? All that is said is that they wont have any slots just like stations and are effected by scaling. But not how they are effected, when do you start paying for them etc
Ytterbium already stated that it won't be free like it is at the moment ( barring pos fuel, setup costs, etc ).
So we know there is going to be a new "tax" added to ALL pos use, were just waiting on how much.
Yes we don't know exactly how much this will be but already t2 manufacturing will get more expensive if you build from invented bpc's which ofc will be passed to the purchaser "hopefully"
They should have released the pricing with this dev blog. People are rightfully worried about how this will affect the way they enjoy the game.
Also many people chose back end systems without any manu slots on the stations in them so they could get cheaper office prices and do everything they needed from their POS. These people are almost certainly going to have to move closer to stations with copy slots or risk their expensive BPO's.
Which means everyone with half a brain will move system. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1015
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:45:00 -
[1283] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:probag Bear wrote:Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. My chief complaint: I have about 25,000 blueprints and blueprint copies and more than a half-dozen POSes. The only reason I can deal with such a quagmire is because of stations and containers. Currently, in order to produce a specific item, all I have to do is go to a certain station, open a certain container, and move some of its contents to the station floor. Under this new system, judging by the way you phrase it ("like other materials"), I would need to do one of two things: 1. Let all my blueprints pile up in various POS arrays, and thus have to scroll through at least hundreds of items every time I start a job. 2. Store all my blueprints in nice organized containers as I do now, and thus every time I start a job be forced to go to every one of my POSes, individually open every single POS array I'm using, scroll to the right container, and remove a simple handful of blueprints each time. #2 would be a lot more clicks, a lot of downtime as I warp between POSes, and in general a lot of annoyance. Even if the S&I interface is revamped to where I don't need to click the exact same 8 spots on my screen 10 times for every character I own, the amount of time wasted by clunky game mechanics would still increase significantly. Long story short, when you work on your filtering mechanisms, please keep in mind that many of us manage more than a single POS and definitely more than just a handful of arrays, cycle through several dozen blueprint types rather than only producing Megathrons, and in general go to extremes that you, Developers, may not expect. You will be able to see all your blueprints in assembly arrays etc and remotely start jobs from containers, so that should cover your use case. EDIT: There is also a nice search / filter interface, you will get some time on SiSi to give us feedback on how this works before we go live too. Can someone please explain what this means? Will we still have to put blueprints on the array floors or will we be able to run jobs using a blueprint in a secure container at a POS? Thinking access rights as well as clicks. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:49:00 -
[1284] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Aeonidis wrote:Refining is getting a major nerf. Mineral compression is going away completely. instead there will only be 2 viable ways to move huge amounts of trit around in any sensible fashion. Rorqual->JF in Low/Null -or- Compression Array ->Freighter ->Station in High. Post patch no one is going to be shipping trit in an industrial that does any kind of capital production. Its going to have to stay in compressed rock form till it hits it final destination and then refined there with a specialized toon. Since Compression Arrays will be able to be anchored anywhere in High it only stands to reason that CCP needs to have the veld miners be able to use those arrays by also being able to compress their ore for logistics purposes. If all the veld miners had to suddenly start grinding standing to Anchor a stick what do you think would happen to the trit market and then New Eden industry as a whole? If the refining and mineral compression changes were happening at different times they might not have to do away with standings. My guess is that all this is leading to POS code changes down the road but they cant rewrite everything at once so some sacrifices have to be made to have the game at least be functional. Thank you for an interesting point, however I think it doesn't negate my argument. If miner corp wants to be efficient they would need to do something about it. They would need to either ask their friends with a POS for refining/compression - or buy a a corp with standings from players - or find a corp with a tower near them and offer them a deal for those services. If an individual miner wants to be efficient he'll have to find a good corp to join or work really hard and try to get it all himself. They would need to setup networks and find contacts in different locations to move the compressed ore about HS. If they refused to work together in such manner they can always just sell their ore on the Market and other entrepreneurs will gladly buy, compress and re-sell it. All those possibilities for interaction, enterprises and group activities have been slimmed down to those who are ignorant of the mechanics or don't have time to run a POS themselves. And those type of people usually just sell to the market and don't add any meaningful interaction to the game. As far as nullsec bears are concerned, their HS miners would need to either follow the same logic, or they can buy it on the market or they can always mine it locally or find corporations in HS and make deals with them instead of ganking them. The flavors of interaction were much more varied. With standing requirement gone, anyone who just created a 1 man corp can setup a POS and run his own show without ever interacting with anyone, and that's what I don't like about it. POS used to be a goal you strive for, now they turned it into an expensive mobile structure. Things in the game have value because they're hard to attain. The concept of owning a POS just got devalued from a corp wide effort to a cost of a battleship for a single pilot. Lastly about the code.... really? With everything wrong with the POS, I'm sure standings are their least concern. Unless they're planning to re-do it by thinning it down to a stick in space first.
I was not trying to negate your argument, I was adding a possible reason why CCP did what they did. CCP has metrics that point to subs staying longer because of the exact reasons you stated. Grouping up with ppl and moving toward a common goal. But those same metrics point to a base of subs that stay around for long time and never get involved in the social aspect of the game. Want to guess which parts of eve those latter subs fall into? All I'm trying to say is that CCP looks at the game from a "game" aspect as well as a "business" aspect. The only way to grow their business is to acquire more subs and get them to stay around longer. The PLEX market cannot grow beyond a certain point without acquiring long term subs. IMO many of the decisions they make are probably really hard as to how can we relieve some barriers for solo players without alienating mulit-account/alt players to the point of unsubbing vs. how can we get rid of this old code that nobody here understands anymore vs. how can we still make a profit doing this. somewhere in that paradigm something has to give and you can bet your ass its going to be some group of players. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
81
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:54:00 -
[1285] - Quote
Sounds like just a series of nerfs to industry players.
So far we have:
- reduction in the ore yield from barges/exhumer
- the requirement to train through a dozen or so Level V refining skills and needing to insert an implant to obtain the pre-summer refine levels
- increased reliance on POS. But the actual mechanics of POS continue to be poor
- removal of standing for POS anchoring?!
But standing will still be required for managing rental of a corporate office at an NPC station But standing will still be required for to managing taxes associated with the market But standing will still be required for to lower taxes on NPC refining facilities
I recall the motto from the ship rebalance: if you could fly it before, you will be able to fly it after. Well seems for Industry: if you could perform something before, you wont be doing it after.
Wonder what else will need to be inserted by the end of these series of dev blogs - hint wont be in the head. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
578
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:58:00 -
[1286] - Quote
Radgette wrote: So we know there is going to be a new "tax" added to ALL pos use, were just waiting on how much.
Depending on the the numbers, it might be better to manufacture and research at an NPC station than suffer the costs of a POS. If it's less than 450m a month (I've already written off the cost of the POS and POS modules), then that'll work out OK I suppose. But with CCP, every silver lining tends to have a cloud. Somewhere...
With this I imagine producing in volume which in any other marketplace would reduce your costs, might actually increase them in Eve. This would be completely counter-intuitive and unrealistic as an economic model. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1112
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 21:05:00 -
[1287] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Sounds like just a series of nerfs to industry players. So far we have:
- reduction in the ore yield from barges/exhumer
- the requirement to train through a dozen or so Level V refining skills and needing to insert an implant to obtain the pre-summer refine levels
- increased reliance on POS. But the actual mechanics of POS continue to be poor
- removal of standing for POS anchoring?!
But standing will still be required for managing rental of a corporate office at an NPC station But standing will still be required for to managing taxes associated with the market But standing will still be required for to lower taxes on NPC refining facilities I recall the motto from the ship rebalance: if you could fly it before, you will be able to fly it after. Well seems for Industry: if you could perform something before, you wont be doing it after. Wonder what else will need to be inserted by the end of these series of dev blogs - hint wont be in the head. That seems partially inaccurate reading some of the blogs, though I admit to not running the numbers.
- reduction in the ore yield from barges/exhumer
The hulk/covetor were actually increased IIRC.
- the requirement to train through a dozen or so Level V refining skills and needing to insert an implant to obtain the pre-summer refine levels
Non issue, the market will adjust to the realities of the new refine rates and not those lvl V refine skills and implants will have widespread reason to exist The benefits far outweigh the losses.
- increased reliance on POS. But the actual mechanics of POS continue to be poor
This seems half true, POS management mechanics are still poor, but the POS benefits to refining have increased. As far as POS reliance we don't know too much about research aside from the fact that NPC facilities are actually becoming better for the vast majority of players who can use them by way of actually being useable without a 20-30day queue.
- removal of standing for POS anchoring?!
Unless you were selling standing, this doesn't change what you were doing
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1015
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 21:13:00 -
[1288] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP are feeding you (nullsec community) with golden spoon ...what the hell you are adapting for ? the new wealth income they are introducing to you ? Oh my. The problem is that:
Many of the people in this thread wrote:Gah! ****! Change!!! We're all doomed! Pathetic. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Susan Black
KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance
123
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 21:50:00 -
[1289] - Quote
Does the removal of slots also mean that FW system upgrades invoolving industrial slots will also be removed?
Will there be replacement upgrades of some kind?
Thanks www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42 |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5389
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 21:55:00 -
[1290] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:..... I seriously hope that you will not be another fail CSM member like the ones so far, there is just enough kick in the ass for indy people already. Or if CCP wants us out, just let us know. Somebody mentioned ESO earlier.. maybe I'm missing something, but manufacturing in ESO? I rather preffer GW2 for that, at least the market, inventions and even the manufacturing is the closest to what we have in EVE. Ofc.. it's still a themepark, but hey...
Just logged off ESO (I am subbed to most a lot of MMOs ). It's crafting system is more intricate than GW2, benefits from teamwork (you get more experience working on items made by others) and it got something like EvE (research, it's like training SP for new skills) instead of discovery. Both are interesting. I do like GW2 markets more, because they are global and thus liquid and optimized. But ESO is not "market-less". There are large-ish trading guilds (even 500 members) and you can join multiple guilds. Each of them comes with their own auction house which is similar to GW2 (looks a bit more "rought" though). Also, ESO seems a bit more sandbox. There are quests and blah blah but you can go anywhere and / or just craft, can skill up almost free form. Only really despicable feature (for a PvPer) is the lack of free for all PvP in outworld, you have to go into a dedicated region. In this it's like GW2. Another 2 positive things about ESO: does not look like the average Korean MMO and is "classic flavour", that is it tries to be closer to EQ and DAoC than WoW / GW2, in many subtle and less than subtle ways. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
153
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:00:00 -
[1291] - Quote
Susan Black wrote:Does the removal of slots also mean that FW system upgrades invoolving industrial slots will also be removed?
Will there be replacement upgrades of some kind?
Thanks
No slots so that FW benefit will disappear. It should be replaced, but reminding CCP makes sense. |
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:05:00 -
[1292] - Quote
While we're addressing all things in building can we bring consistency to the building skills.
Frigate Construction V allows assault frigates (Ishkur) and dictors (Eris) Cruiser Construction IV allows assault cruisers (Ishtar and Demios) Cruiser Construction V allows Heavy Dictors (Phobos) and Command Ships.
The tiericide path would put assault frigates in Frigate Construction IV. Leaving T2 Dessy ships in level V.
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
178
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:16:00 -
[1293] - Quote
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).'
This will cause a possible land rush to get to systems by people who did not grind for faction standings in the past.
I would like to suggest to CCP for a transition period to mitigate the two issues.
- Give the capsuleers that put in the effort to grind faction standings a timeframe of a few weeks to setup pos based on their faction standing in those faction systems, 8.0+ standing for 8.0 systems, 9.0+ for 9.0 systems and 10.0 for 10.0 systems.
- Then after the transition periode allow everybody to setup their pos anywhere in hisec.
This will be fair to the both group of players (with and with the faction standings) and mitigate the land rush.
Also incase one day hisec is full of inactive unfueled pos, maybe allow them to be shot at by anyone without concord interference.
Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6990
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:21:00 -
[1294] - Quote
Freelancer117 wrote: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).' This will cause a possible land rush to get to systems by people who did not grind for faction standings in the past.I would like to suggest to CCP for a transition period to mitigate the two issues.- Give the capsuleers that put in the effort to grind faction standings a timeframe of a few weeks to setup pos based on their faction standing in those faction systems, 8.0+ standing for 8.0 systems, 9.0+ for 9.0 systems and 10.0 for 10.0 systems. - Then after the transition periode allow everybody to setup their pos anywhere in hisec. This will be fair to the both group of players (with and with the faction standings) and mitigate the land rush. Also incase one day hisec is full of inactive unfueled pos, maybe allow them to be shot at by anyone without concord interference.
Nonsense. You've already reserved land in half of highsec and have had that for years as your reward. You've gotten more than enough advantage from your corp standings.
It is a sad day when we have people arguing that when new space is opened up newbies should be barred until the older and wealthier players have taken all of the desirable portions. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6990
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:22:00 -
[1295] - Quote
Eodp Ellecon wrote:While we're addressing all things in building can we bring consistency to the building skills.
Frigate Construction V allows assault frigates (Ishkur) and dictors (Eris) Cruiser Construction IV allows assault cruisers (Ishtar and Demios) Cruiser Construction V allows Heavy Dictors (Phobos) and Command Ships.
The tiericide path would put assault frigates in Frigate Construction IV. Leaving T2 Dessy ships in level V.
also, make something require battleship construction V and something require industrial construction v (like jump freighters!) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
271
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:32:00 -
[1296] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Eodp Ellecon wrote:While we're addressing all things in building can we bring consistency to the building skills.
Frigate Construction V allows assault frigates (Ishkur) and dictors (Eris) Cruiser Construction IV allows assault cruisers (Ishtar and Demios) Cruiser Construction V allows Heavy Dictors (Phobos) and Command Ships.
The tiericide path would put assault frigates in Frigate Construction IV. Leaving T2 Dessy ships in level V.
also, make something require battleship construction V and something require industrial construction v (like jump freighters!)
These skills seem to be missing: Destroyer Construction, Battlecruiser Construction, and Supercapital Construction.
MDD |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1161
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:49:00 -
[1297] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.
ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Minerva Arbosa
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:51:00 -
[1298] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Freelancer117 wrote: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).' This will cause a possible land rush to get to systems by people who did not grind for faction standings in the past.I would like to suggest to CCP for a transition period to mitigate the two issues.- Give the capsuleers that put in the effort to grind faction standings a timeframe of a few weeks to setup pos based on their faction standing in those faction systems, 8.0+ standing for 8.0 systems, 9.0+ for 9.0 systems and 10.0 for 10.0 systems. - Then after the transition periode allow everybody to setup their pos anywhere in hisec. This will be fair to the both group of players (with and with the faction standings) and mitigate the land rush. Also incase one day hisec is full of inactive unfueled pos, maybe allow them to be shot at by anyone without concord interference.
Nonsense. You've already reserved land in half of highsec and have had that for years as your reward. You've gotten more than enough advantage from your corp standings. It is a sad day when we have people arguing that when new space is opened up newbies should be barred until the older and wealthier players have taken all of the desirable portions.
Guessing your coalition won't mind offering a good number of free systems for space in nullsec then for use of the stations that will become vastly more valuable right?
I just hope CCP reads most of these posts and realizes, not all of this patch is a good thing. A decent amount of this patch could be tiercide for industrialists.
|
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
318
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:52:00 -
[1299] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:
I was not trying to negate your argument, I was adding a possible reason why CCP did what they did. CCP has metrics that point to subs staying longer because of the exact reasons you stated. Grouping up with ppl and moving toward a common goal. But those same metrics point to a base of subs that stay around for long time and never get involved in the social aspect of the game. Want to guess which parts of eve those latter subs fall into? All I'm trying to say is that CCP looks at the game from a "game" aspect as well as a "business" aspect. The only way to grow their business is to acquire more subs and get them to stay around longer. The PLEX market cannot grow beyond a certain point without acquiring long term subs. IMO many of the decisions they make are probably really hard as to how can we relieve some barriers for solo players without alienating mulit-account/alt players to the point of unsubbing vs. how can we get rid of this old code that nobody here understands anymore vs. how can we still make a profit doing this. somewhere in that paradigm something has to give and you can bet your ass its going to be some group of players.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you.
I am hoping CCP will still be different and cling to their ideals and goals that they started with, not succumb to the dollar. Succumbing to the markets has been the downfall of many great games and big developers. That's why I love small(er) independent companies which are not ruined by corporate dogma. There was a big reason, a "why" for EVE's creation and it wasn't a dollar sign.
CCP still has an extremely talented and innovative team and I'm confident they can come up with solutions to all those problems. New and casual players do matter but in my opinion the way they're addressing the issue is misguided. I don't pretend to have an ounce of understand what it's like to be them but when they start offending a large core of their player base you know they could be doing something much better. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
404
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:55:00 -
[1300] - Quote
Minerva Arbosa wrote:Guessing your coalition won't mind offering a good number of free systems for space in nullsec then for use of the stations that will become vastly more valuable right?
Feel free to anchor as many towers as you want in our space. I recommend filling them with lots of valuable goodies. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6991
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:56:00 -
[1301] - Quote
Minerva Arbosa wrote: Guessing your coalition won't mind offering a good number of free systems for space in nullsec then for use of the stations that will become vastly more valuable right?
I just hope CCP reads most of these posts and realizes, not all of this patch is a good thing. A decent amount of this patch could be tiercide for industrialists.
Our rental rates aren't free, but they're so reasonable that they're the next best thing. Contact a PBLRD recruiter today! Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Althanaslas Imhari
Tetragorn SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 23:03:00 -
[1302] - Quote
Just out of curiosity, with the requirements now removed for anchoring towers, will there be any form of compensation for those who had to previously grind their asses off to get the standings to anchor one? I agree with most everything in the blog, but that particular change seems like a shot at older players as much as a good change for newer players. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
404
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 23:04:00 -
[1303] - Quote
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Just out of curiosity, with the requirements now removed for anchoring towers, will there be any form of compensation for those who had to previously grind their asses off to get the standings to anchor one? I agree with most everything in the blog, but that particular change seems like a shot at older players as much as a good change for newer players. Your compensation was an uninterrupted decade of highsec POS hegemony. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Althanaslas Imhari
Tetragorn SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 23:31:00 -
[1304] - Quote
Querns wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Just out of curiosity, with the requirements now removed for anchoring towers, will there be any form of compensation for those who had to previously grind their asses off to get the standings to anchor one? I agree with most everything in the blog, but that particular change seems like a shot at older players as much as a good change for newer players. Your compensation was an uninterrupted decade of highsec POS hegemony.
To be clear, I have never had a highsec tower myself, too much work. I'm merely questioning the decision to open up a game mechanic that players had previously sunk many hours of gameplay into. From reading the comments on this thread so far, that particular move seems to have ruffled a few feathers. |
Kaius Fero
32
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 23:37:00 -
[1305] - Quote
Querns wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Just out of curiosity, with the requirements now removed for anchoring towers, will there be any form of compensation for those who had to previously grind their asses off to get the standings to anchor one? I agree with most everything in the blog, but that particular change seems like a shot at older players as much as a good change for newer players. Your compensation was an uninterrupted decade of highsec POS hegemony. And your decade of carebearing in Deklein was intrerupted by... who? Most probably by Larry Forever ...
And by the way, you dudes knew nothing about the changes regarding the POS anchoring in hi sec, right? Just 3 weeks ago was a big rush to drop tons of POS in some hi sec systems, all of them are offline and owned by a one man corp. I'm sure this is just pure coincidence. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
404
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 23:39:00 -
[1306] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:And your decade of carebearing in Deklein was intrerupted by... who? Most probably by Larry Forever ... Goonswarm Federation has only been in control of Deklein for 3-+ years. Try again. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6991
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 23:43:00 -
[1307] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:And your decade of carebearing in Deklein was intrerupted by... who? Most probably by Larry Forever ... And by the way, you dudes knew nothing about the changes regarding the POS anchoring in hi sec, right? Just 3 weeks ago was a big rush to drop tons of POS in some hi sec systems, all of them are offline and owned by a one man corp. I'm sure this is just pure coincidence. we continue to pay sov bills and defend our space every day rather than sit on the laurels of having a guy who ground standings once sit in the corp which is how we maintain our control of deklein
if someone knew about these changes ahead of time then they would certainly not spend the time squatting moons that are soon to become in significantly lower demand because industry pos are getting nerfed and better space is opening up
come, use that lump of porridge between your ears Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
404
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 23:44:00 -
[1308] - Quote
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Querns wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Just out of curiosity, with the requirements now removed for anchoring towers, will there be any form of compensation for those who had to previously grind their asses off to get the standings to anchor one? I agree with most everything in the blog, but that particular change seems like a shot at older players as much as a good change for newer players. Your compensation was an uninterrupted decade of highsec POS hegemony. To be clear, I have never had a highsec tower myself, too much work. I'm merely questioning the decision to open up a game mechanic that players had previously sunk many hours of gameplay into. From reading the comments on this thread so far, that particular move seems to have ruffled a few feathers.
Grinding standings does not, by necessity, entitle you to permanent, unencroached benefit. Allowing more players to build something in Eve is better for retention, and no one is explicitly harmed, except those who had built a side business lubricating a terrible game mechanic. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1256
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 23:46:00 -
[1309] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:
And by the way, you dudes knew nothing about the changes regarding the POS anchoring in hi sec, right? Just 3 weeks ago was a big rush to drop tons of POS in some hi sec systems, all of them are offline and owned by a one man corp. I'm sure this is just pure coincidence.
Just E-mail IA with the guys name & corp, and let them lay down the ban hammer. |
Althanaslas Imhari
Tetragorn SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 23:55:00 -
[1310] - Quote
Querns wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Querns wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Just out of curiosity, with the requirements now removed for anchoring towers, will there be any form of compensation for those who had to previously grind their asses off to get the standings to anchor one? I agree with most everything in the blog, but that particular change seems like a shot at older players as much as a good change for newer players. Your compensation was an uninterrupted decade of highsec POS hegemony. To be clear, I have never had a highsec tower myself, too much work. I'm merely questioning the decision to open up a game mechanic that players had previously sunk many hours of gameplay into. From reading the comments on this thread so far, that particular move seems to have ruffled a few feathers. Grinding standings does not, by necessity, entitle you to permanent, unencroached benefit. Allowing more players to build something in Eve is better for retention, and no one is explicitly harmed, except those who had built a side business lubricating a terrible game mechanic.
That was not necessarily my point. My point was about the devaluation of the time spent on the grind. More towers and more labs means good things for the economy, I agree wholeheartedly. The way this change seems , to use an example, would be say a kickstarter where the original investors get the same product that is later given away for free. That's life, yes, but it is certainly going to upset the people who invested. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6991
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 00:01:00 -
[1311] - Quote
Althanaslas Imhari wrote: That was not necessarily my point. My point was about the devaluation of the time spent on the grind. More towers and more labs means good things for the economy, I agree wholeheartedly. The way this change seems , to use an example, would be say a kickstarter where the original investors get the same product that is later given away for free. That's life, yes, but it is certainly going to upset the people who invested.
this is akin to how i paid like a thousand dollars for my computer three years ago and i could build a better one for $500 now
sure i spent $500 more but i got the computer three years ago Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Althanaslas Imhari
Tetragorn SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 00:04:00 -
[1312] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote: That was not necessarily my point. My point was about the devaluation of the time spent on the grind. More towers and more labs means good things for the economy, I agree wholeheartedly. The way this change seems , to use an example, would be say a kickstarter where the original investors get the same product that is later given away for free. That's life, yes, but it is certainly going to upset the people who invested.
this is akin to how i paid like a thousand dollars for my computer three years ago and i could build a better one for $500 now sure i spent $500 more but i got the computer three years ago
You do indeed have a point there. I withdraw my argument :) |
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 00:34:00 -
[1313] - Quote
These skills seem to be missing: Destroyer Construction, Battlecruiser Construction, and Supercapital Construction.
MDD[/quote]
Dessy is small ring therefore covered by Frigate Construction. Cruiser is medium ring which covers battlecruiser. Supercapital is part of Capital Construction (IV).
We don't need more stratification skills, imho. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2702
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 00:43:00 -
[1314] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Querns wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Just out of curiosity, with the requirements now removed for anchoring towers, will there be any form of compensation for those who had to previously grind their asses off to get the standings to anchor one? I agree with most everything in the blog, but that particular change seems like a shot at older players as much as a good change for newer players. Your compensation was an uninterrupted decade of highsec POS hegemony. And your decade of carebearing in Deklein was intrerupted by... who? Most probably by Larry Forever ... And by the way, you dudes knew nothing about the changes regarding the POS anchoring in hi sec, right? Just 3 weeks ago was a big rush to drop tons of POS in some hi sec systems, all of them are offline and owned by a one man corp. I'm sure this is just pure coincidence.
Can you give some system locations for this one man corp POS's? It would be easy to map them if they roll over to new owners. Also, what are the features of these systems? Do they hold copy / research slots at NPC stations? If they do, that is one heluva big red flag.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Dearthair
Black Research Industries
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 04:27:00 -
[1315] - Quote
Someone might have pointed this out already, but there are items that cannot be made at a POS. POS structures, for one, which is probably a fairly minor issue, but as far as I know, you also cannot make rigs at a POS. That is a bigger issue. I could, of course, be wrong about the rigs. I don't currently own a POS. Are there any plans to allow rig and/or POS structure manufacture at a POS? NBLID (Not Blue Let It Die), the new motto for miners, manufacturers, and retailers everywhere. |
Chiralos
Merchant Princes
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 04:50:00 -
[1316] - Quote
This is positive. Simplifying without dumbing, more attention paid to risk and reward.
About time we had some sort of economic model behind NPC industry facilities. I always tried to make up a rationale why the Empires operated a system with a fixed number of slots for capsuleers at a fixed price, which had some standing idle others were oversubscribed. Probably some sort of treaty which has now been scrapped, opening up slots that were always there but denied to capsuleers.
Also, about time perfect refining was got rid of. It just seemed like something that should have been pre-nerfed from the start of the game - setting the nominal max refine at 50% would have given plenty of room for players to invest in higher efficiency, specialisation, etc. |
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Disavowed.
106
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 05:34:00 -
[1317] - Quote
After reading this only more people wil be demanding a alliance roles revamp and a pos revamp! Because now many more people will know the "joys" of managing roles and pos'es... . |
Vesago
Amalgamated Steel
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 05:40:00 -
[1318] - Quote
I apologize if I didn't see this in the last 33 pages because I just stopped reading after that, but has any Dev responded to the no standings requirements for high sec POS's issue?
I read a lot, and it looked like it was completely ignored. Again I apologize if something proactive was said by a Dev in the last 33 pages.
On to my gripe... No standing requirements for high sec POS's...This is a horrible idea!
I predict that by day 3, there will be no available moons in high sec. Everyone and their brother is going to throw one up. I guess i'm safe enough until I get a war dec, and I have to tear it down or lose it. By the time my war dec is done, I may as well sell my equipment because all of my high standings toons wont be able to find another moon.
Massive indy corps that cant possibly put up high sec POS's will suddenly be able to. That means tens of thousands of new high sec POS owners overnight.
I do have a couple of ideas to fix what I see as a potentially huge problem right from the start.
1. If I have a POS at a moon, let me tear it down in case of war decs, and reserve the moon by paying for the space with charters. So this doesn't get abused make it so that the option is only available in the event of a war, and make it so that you can only pay charters for 7 days (or some reasonable amount of time) to re-install your POS, after your wars are finished, or you forfeit your claim to the space.
2. Allow more than one POS per moon. There is literally no reason this shouldn't be possible. If you need control over this in higher use systems, limit the moons number of POS's based on sec status or something.
I don't think these ideas impact the changes you are making negatively, and will allow the little guys like me to continue to use POS's in High Sec.
|
Darryn Lowe
AD ASTRA Interstellar
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 05:43:00 -
[1319] - Quote
Paul Otichoda wrote:So those 6 months grinding standings for a high sec POS has been wasted?
I must say this rather does remove much need to have high standings with a faction and not a corporation now
I think this is the point. It seems that CCP has been moving more and more away from dependence on NPC and moving more and more towards autonomy for corporations.
Personally I love this change. I skilled up to build a Loki for a corp member who lost his in battle only to find that I couldn't build it because nowhere in the BP did it say you needed access to a station with a ship building array which was only available in a player owned station. Being new to Tech II builds I did not know this so the whole idea was wasted. Now if what I'm reading is true then this is going to add an awesome dynamic to industry.
It sounds as though it doesn't even need to be built at a moon. Be pretty cool to sit a station in a belt and mine with big guns protecting you. It probably doesn't work like that but one can dream. :-) |
George Wizardry
Asian P0RN
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 05:43:00 -
[1320] - Quote
This may be a little off topic ( but it fits with all the chat here )
Because CCP is trying to force more ppl into low and null sec area's why don't they allow concord to police low sec but have them take longer to respond? e.g instead of the 5 seconds per level below 1.0 make the response times 10 seconds per level below 1.0 for security area's 0.4 to 0.1 inclusive?
This still allows for a lot of PvP/ganking in those regions but the gankee has a chance of surviving and a lot more players would take the risk.
Within the EVE universe I have no interest or desire to kill other players, real life is a different story...... |
|
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
293
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 05:48:00 -
[1321] - Quote
We need an API for querying the tax scaling of stations. |
Bawb Zennshinagas
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 07:00:00 -
[1322] - Quote
If the ability to send Blueprints remotely is going away, what is happening to the skills that enable remote management? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5390
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 07:04:00 -
[1323] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:Weaselior wrote:i look forward to crushing all of the ~industrialists~ who are unable to adapt to even small changes
the weaselior division of Goonswarm Incorporated will soon be dominating all of your old markets I'm sure this will look perfect in your RL resume when you are applying to job, pls update your linkedin with your new skills like crushing and goon industrialist. where the hell these ppl come from ? Goon are stupid. Need I say more? You mean smart enough to adapt?
And when they don't want to adapt, they push to adapt the game to suit them Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
388
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 07:33:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote: That was not necessarily my point. My point was about the devaluation of the time spent on the grind. More towers and more labs means good things for the economy, I agree wholeheartedly. The way this change seems , to use an example, would be say a kickstarter where the original investors get the same product that is later given away for free. That's life, yes, but it is certainly going to upset the people who invested.
this is akin to how i paid like a thousand dollars for my computer three years ago and i could build a better one for $500 now sure i spent $500 more but i got the computer three years ago Sure, but how would you feel if you bought the computer last month for $1,000 and the company announced yesterday that the price was now $500, for a better model?
Would you still feel that you got full value for your $1,000?
There are quite a few newer players who have been painfully doing the standings grind, and have not yet been able to benefit substantially from it. |
Micheal York Solette
Dragon Star Enterprize
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 07:39:00 -
[1325] - Quote
Ok this what I would like clarified with POS's the way the wording is it sounds like I no longer need to anchor a POS to a moon that I can just drop it anywhere in space. So does it still need a moon or will be able to just drop one anywhere?
MYS
|
G'host Warrot
Low-Sec Survival Ltd.
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 07:47:00 -
[1326] - Quote
Thought the same. Hidden hint? |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
388
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 07:55:00 -
[1327] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:What is your plan for T2 BPOs? T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners.
And, I should think that the same argument that many players have against "reimbursement for the standings grind" should really apply here:
The owners of T2 BPO's have enjoyed the benefits and profit for years. They have been long since fully compensated for their investment.
However, to help reduce the sting, I don't mind suggesting to convert each T2 BPO to a number of limited run BPCs (say, 100 copies or so).
|
Kaius Fero
33
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 08:17:00 -
[1328] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:Querns wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Just out of curiosity, with the requirements now removed for anchoring towers, will there be any form of compensation for those who had to previously grind their asses off to get the standings to anchor one? I agree with most everything in the blog, but that particular change seems like a shot at older players as much as a good change for newer players. Your compensation was an uninterrupted decade of highsec POS hegemony. And your decade of carebearing in Deklein was intrerupted by... who? Most probably by Larry Forever ... And by the way, you dudes knew nothing about the changes regarding the POS anchoring in hi sec, right? Just 3 weeks ago was a big rush to drop tons of POS in some hi sec systems, all of them are offline and owned by a one man corp. I'm sure this is just pure coincidence. Can you give some system locations for this one man corp POS's? It would be easy to map them if they roll over to new owners. Also, what are the features of these systems? Do they hold copy / research slots at NPC stations? If they do, that is one heluva big red flag. I don't wanna jump to conclusions, therefore I still consider it a.. coincidence. But about 3 weeks ago I followed this guy for a while because he was jumping from moon to moon in a shuttle looking for free spots, then he started to drop a lot of towers, none of them were onlined yet (last time I checked was more than a week ago). Point is.. a one man corp cannot afford to drop so many towers, even if all of them are offline. So he knew something big is coming. Or.. maybe he is just a businessman and everything is a pure coincidence. |
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 08:41:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Gospadin wrote:What is your plan for T2 BPOs? T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners. "Remove t2 BPO"... But.. Did you never notice that, having a t2 bpo is not only an advantage ? 1) It costs so much you need more than 3-4 years to make interest on the price you paid 2) it's only 1 job -> making a ton of t2 requires tons of time 3) it's only 10-30% more isks gain than your invention
The only advantage I see is not to have to make invention. That's the main point.
Atm, I make much more t2 items using invention than i'd make with the same t2 bpo... making 20 invention and 20 t2 production job in parallel gives much more ISK at the end.
And no, I do not own any t2 BPO, and I don't want any anyway ^^
To come back the real subject of the thread : I still don't get why POS/Outposts owner should have tax from running job in their OWN sructures. That's non sense. Either telling "it's for npc workers in the POS/Outpost" or just telling "never not 0% tax in player structure" is just a shame.
I really like the new way we are going to use industry in EVE, trust me, but, as you CCP says in devblog [quote][Any industry feature must have an actual gameplay attached to it in order to exist Any industry feature must be balanced around our risk versus reward philosophy Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base /quote] Well... - being able to remote start a blueprint from station corp hangar to POS had an actual gameplay attached, but it's being removed. - Hauling materials/Ore to station to make items / mineral compression had balance between risk versus reward while you hauled it, but it's being remove in profit for ore compression only in POS (when will we be able to contract courier from station to POS ?) - Removing used features is sometimes not ******* understandable but visible to your players, but you still do it :)
The only thing I thing behind all these (real for sure in some case) improvements, is the "we need to create isk sink". |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
389
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 09:33:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Althalus Stenory wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Gospadin wrote:What is your plan for T2 BPOs? T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners. "Remove t2 BPO"... But.. Did you never notice that, having a t2 bpo is not only an advantage ? 1) It costs so much you need more than 3-4 years to make interest on the price you paid 2) it's only 1 job -> making a ton of t2 requires tons of time 3) it's only 10-30% more isks gain than your invention The only advantage I see is not to have to make invention. That's the main point. Atm, I make much more t2 items using invention than i'd make with the same t2 bpo... making 20 invention and 20 t2 production job in parallel gives much more ISK at the end. And no, I do not own any t2 BPO, and I don't want any anyway ^^ Well, then, you should have no objection to removing the T2 BPO's from the game. So, I'm not sure I see your point.
And, most of the T2 BPO owners have had them for much longer than 3-4 years, and didn't pay all that much them in the BPO lottery... just FYI. |
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 09:48:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Micheal York Solette wrote:Ok this what I would like clarified with POS's the way the wording is it sounds like I no longer need to anchor a POS to a moon that I can just drop it anywhere in space. So does it still need a moon or will be able to just drop one anywhere? MYS
read the OP it directs you to this about your question: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4476028#post4476028 |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
580
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 10:00:00 -
[1332] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:We need an API for querying the tax scaling of stations.
Yes. Otherwise the tools we've written to help us manage our production, which CCP don't provide (grrr) won't be accurate. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
580
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 10:02:00 -
[1333] - Quote
Althalus Stenory wrote:for ore compression only in POS (when will we be able to contract courier from station to POS ?)
As far as I know, you'll still be able to compress it in a Rorqual, not just a POS. Presumably you do need a POS to park the Rorqual whilst it compresses, but otherwise it's what I'm doing today, so no change there.
|
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
109
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 11:18:00 -
[1334] - Quote
Last time before the weekend.
CCP or knowledgeable CSM members (without breaking NDA)
Can we please get a more detailed explanations of the standings changes.
Why do you think this is good? What game play you think this will promote?
Or if I've missed it please point me to the answer. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
110
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 11:39:00 -
[1335] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kaius Fero wrote:And your decade of carebearing in Deklein was intrerupted by... who? Most probably by Larry Forever ... And by the way, you dudes knew nothing about the changes regarding the POS anchoring in hi sec, right? Just 3 weeks ago was a big rush to drop tons of POS in some hi sec systems, all of them are offline and owned by a one man corp. I'm sure this is just pure coincidence. we continue to pay sov bills and defend our space every day rather than sit on the laurels of having a guy who ground standings once sit in the corp which is how we maintain our control of deklein if someone knew about these changes ahead of time then they would certainly not spend the time squatting moons that are soon to become in significantly lower demand because industry pos are getting nerfed and better space is opening up come, use that lump of porridge between your ears
Well Highsec POS owners have to use charters to keep their poses, pretty much like sov bill lite.
Though if CCP wanted to implement a way for standings to be dynamic and decay overtime if not kept up then I would be for that. It would certainly help keep the null-sec corps from directly holding the best highsec space. Of course alt corps and such will be a problem. But alt corps are probably easier to deal with than all of Goonswarm.
And there does need to be a good mechanic to remove in-active POSes.
Though I think all planets and moons should have at least 6 positions to anchor stuff. Top, Bottom, North, South, East, West. Simple way to add real estate to the game and make systems more valuable without spreading over half the map. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
320
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 12:27:00 -
[1336] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Gospadin wrote:What is your plan for T2 BPOs? T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners. And, I should think that the same argument that many players have against "reimbursement for the standings grind" should really apply here: The owners of T2 BPO's have enjoyed the benefits and profit for years. They have been long since fully compensated for their investment. However, to help reduce the sting, I don't mind suggesting to convert each T2 BPO to a number of limited run BPCs (say, 100 copies or so).
I love your logic. You know what, right now there's some serious imbalances between capital ships. Lets just remove them. Hell looks like HS/NS are getting imbalanced as well.... lets just remove HS. Lets just have one ship for one race, that requires one skill to fly.
Do people suggesting T2 BPOs be removed even realize what they're suggesting? It's not some kind of a privilege system that only old players are allowed to use. They're an item like any other which has been traded and changed hands many times since they were seeded to the game. Quit your whining and be happy there is an invention system. T2 BPOs aren't all that what people make them out to be. |
Rosie
Freelancers Inc. Research Division United Manufacturing and Technology Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 12:31:00 -
[1337] - Quote
It seems to me that the solution proposed to reduce waiting queues on bpo operations in NPC station could much better be addressed by allowing us to rent out slots on our pos towers (of was supposed to be possible years ago) instead of this massive logistical haudling to an from POS in systems. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 12:35:00 -
[1338] - Quote
Dearthair wrote:Someone might have pointed this out already, but there are items that cannot be made at a POS. POS structures, for one, which is probably a fairly minor issue, but as far as I know, you also cannot make rigs at a POS. That is a bigger issue. I could, of course, be wrong about the rigs. I don't currently own a POS. Are there any plans to allow rig and/or POS structure manufacture at a POS?
Rigs are produced in the regular Equipment Assembly Array |
Arana Mirelin
Te'Rava Industries
35
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 12:39:00 -
[1339] - Quote
Dearthair wrote:Someone might have pointed this out already, but there are items that cannot be made at a POS. POS structures, for one, which is probably a fairly minor issue, but as far as I know, you also cannot make rigs at a POS. That is a bigger issue. I could, of course, be wrong about the rigs. I don't currently own a POS. Are there any plans to allow rig and/or POS structure manufacture at a POS?
You're information regarding rig manufacture is inaccurate. I build rigs in an equipment assembly array semi-frequently. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14181
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 12:51:00 -
[1340] - Quote
Zappity wrote:industrial foreman wrote:What are the chances everyone says F it and just builds in Jita 4-4 and pushes the 14% cost onto the items? Zero. Because not everyone is that stupid and the intelligent producers will immediately and savagely undercut the unintelligent ones. no, not zero. when i saw unlimited but scaling cost I thought of the billions of isk/month office rental at jita, until I got to the part where it gets capped. then I knew it will happen, and those types will sell for whatever they can get, and accept what ISK comes out as the end result. it's because their priorities are Industry gameplay, safety, and ISK... not necessarily efficiently.
never say never. you WILL see mining barges docking at 4-4 to empty their ore hold. oh yes. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
|
michael philip Ellecon
Empyrean Warriors Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 12:56:00 -
[1341] - Quote
The sky is falling buy all the things,
Indy did need a update the UI was awful, and you have kind of changed the POS so i might not have to move all the things around between modules all the time, so that's good. hi sec POSs mite have become safer too in i only need 1 of each mod not 20 as i have ATM, "online all the guns". for added cost on jobs at POSs not a fan, to counter could down size POS and just save on fuel.
on removing the extra materials list from BPO and BPCs how will this effect T2 BPCs will i be need more T1 Parts the T2 i am building (two T1 hulls to make one T2 or 14 T1 guns to make 10 T2), will all the T2BPC change on patch day or just the ones made after, do i need to build all the things?
i like the idea that an indy corp can now base all it members from one station, not being limited to the max number of slots. aswell as other station users. going to be funny watching the scaling cost of ME slots hit its max 14% from day 1 as all the noobs start taking T1 BPO well beyond the perfect ME levels(ccp a hidden isk skink).
Removal of standings to put up POS this is good for the indy corp. hopefully with a good POS / corp management rework. could be better for the overall game. not being able to build with BPO locked in station, not good for the Cap, Supper builders although the copy speed may be a work around for this not ideal.
also will this mean no more pending jobs? like none, just think of how may invention jobs you can do.
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:11:00 -
[1342] - Quote
michael philip Ellecon wrote:also will this mean no more pending jobs? like none, just think of how may invention jobs you can do.
I hope this is an option one can decide on when installing jobs. For example in the case of invention jobs that only require like 30 minutes it might be more interesting for a player to queue all 10 jobs for each char, with a number of queues equal to the number of invention chars involved. This way one could still ensure minimum extra taxes. Should queuing be removed completely, the above example would incur a tax explosion, when all the hundreds of jobs result in astronomic scaling. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14181
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:14:00 -
[1343] - Quote
I went through the thread. I don't recall anything about the corporation office cap (per station). will that be lifted? President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Dearthair
Black Research Industries
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:14:00 -
[1344] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:Dearthair wrote:Someone might have pointed this out already, but there are items that cannot be made at a POS. POS structures, for one, which is probably a fairly minor issue, but as far as I know, you also cannot make rigs at a POS. That is a bigger issue. I could, of course, be wrong about the rigs. I don't currently own a POS. Are there any plans to allow rig and/or POS structure manufacture at a POS? Rigs are produced in the regular Equipment Assembly Array
Thanks for clearing that up. I was only going on the fact that EVEMON will show blueprint stats for modules built in an equipment assembly array but only shows NPC stations for rigs. Of course, we are still out of luck for POS structures. NBLID (Not Blue Let It Die), the new motto for miners, manufacturers, and retailers everywhere. |
Kaius Fero
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:17:00 -
[1345] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:we continue to pay sov bills and defend our space every day rather than sit on the laurels of having a guy who ground standings once sit in the corp which is how we maintain our control of deklein
...
come, use that lump of porridge between your ears Is really touching and sad story, I feel you. You had to pay tenbux, then work hard by mining the moons, defend the most safest space in eve universe so Larry and those nasty npc rats will not take it over.... you dudes seriously deserve a medal or more. Now I'm happy that I choose to stay in hi sec where every gate is camped by gankers, Jita is burning, cosmos missions are fun etc.
Weaselior wrote: if someone knew about these changes ahead of time then they would certainly not spend the time squatting moons that are soon to become in significantly lower demand because industry pos are getting nerfed and better space is opening up
Now this is interesting. Is there a new dev blog announcing that they will open new space this summer? Really? Link pls! |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2706
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:18:00 -
[1346] - Quote
One thing that I have yet to see addressed is why we need another ISK sink in the game. Regardless of what the cartel propagandists say, CCP's own latest economic presentation states explicitly that the economy is in a DEFLATIONARY state, when plexes are removed from the equation.
So why is CCP implementing a system that will undoubtedly lead to even less ISK in the system? Now that being said, we will certainly see prices rising if null sec does not take advantage of the massive industrial advantages it is being handed in the next couple blogs. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
michael philip Ellecon
Empyrean Warriors Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:22:00 -
[1347] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:michael philip Ellecon wrote:also will this mean no more pending jobs? like none, just think of how may invention jobs you can do.
I hope this is an option one can decide on when installing jobs. For example in the case of invention jobs that only require like 30 minutes it might be more interesting for a player to queue all 10 jobs for each char, with a number of queues equal to the number of invention chars involved. This way one could still ensure minimum extra taxes. Should queuing be removed completely, the above example would incur a tax explosion, when all the hundreds of jobs result in astronomic scaling.
so there could be a race, to avoid a peek time surge in tax explosions, when it comes to invention, just after DT, as a exsample. could this be a work around to aviod said taxs |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14181
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:24:00 -
[1348] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:One thing that I have yet to see addressed is why we need another ISK sink in the game. Regardless of what the cartel propagandists say, CCP's own latest economic presentation states explicitly that the economy is in a DEFLATIONARY state, when plexes are removed from the equation.
So why is CCP implementing a system that will undoubtedly lead to even less ISK in the system? Now that being said, we will certainly see prices rising if null sec does not take advantage of the massive industrial advantages it is being handed in the next couple blogs.
dumb guess here: when so many of EVE's players are lurking, loner high sec dwellers, providing the opportunity to research BPOs and build things would help with new player retention, i think. most of the players commenting in this thread are experienced, intelligent, high-volume industrialists... but some people just simply want to play. what do you think President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6999
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:26:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: Sure, but how would you feel if you bought the computer last month for $1,000 and the company announced yesterday that the price was now $500, for a better model?
Would you still feel that you got full value for your $1,000?
There are quite a few newer players who have been painfully doing the standings grind, and have not yet been able to benefit substantially from it.
i would say that it had been on sale for ten years at $1,000 and a price cut and better products is an unalloyed good thing so if i can't return it i shouldn't want everyone else to be worse off just because i am
any player who did the standings grind has their standings character which retains significant value and have lost nothing
Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6999
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:29:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote: Is really touching and sad story, I feel you. You had to pay tenbux, then work hard by mining the moons, defend the most safest space in eve universe so Larry and those nasty npc rats will not take it over.... you dudes seriously deserve a medal or more. Now I'm happy that I choose to stay in hi sec where every gate is camped by gankers, Jita is burning, cosmos missions are fun etc.
it is "the most safest space in eve universe" because we put in constant effort to keep it that way
standing alone deklein is not particularly secure compared to more defensible regions, it's just we own it and we have fought our way to the top
Kaius Fero wrote: Now this is interesting. Is there a new dev blog announcing that they will open new space this summer? Really? Link pls!
its this one you idiot
moons in .8 to 1.0 space are getting opened up for the first time as announced in this devblog
did you even read it Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2706
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:31:00 -
[1351] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:One thing that I have yet to see addressed is why we need another ISK sink in the game. Regardless of what the cartel propagandists say, CCP's own latest economic presentation states explicitly that the economy is in a DEFLATIONARY state, when plexes are removed from the equation.
So why is CCP implementing a system that will undoubtedly lead to even less ISK in the system? Now that being said, we will certainly see prices rising if null sec does not take advantage of the massive industrial advantages it is being handed in the next couple blogs. dumb guess here: when so many of EVE's players are lurking, loner high sec dwellers, providing the opportunity to research BPOs and build things would help with new player retention, i think. most of the players commenting in this thread are experienced, intelligent, high-volume industrialists... but some people just simply want to play. what do you think
Huh? I have no idea what you are on about.\ Can you clarify?
Though I know the propagandists will answer on behalf of CCP, I would love to see a dev justify it. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14181
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:34:00 -
[1352] - Quote
standings characters are still worth the most as traders. a 5 million SP trade character with high faction standings is worth a billion ISK per million SP (easy)... 5 billion ISK for a potentially brand-spanking-new character. besides, using a standings character to pump out a 150 million ISK corporation at an ideal rate of 4/month for a yield of 600 million ISK [which barely covers a PLEX and has for some time] is bad anyway.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:One thing that I have yet to see addressed is why we need another ISK sink in the game. Regardless of what the cartel propagandists say, CCP's own latest economic presentation states explicitly that the economy is in a DEFLATIONARY state, when plexes are removed from the equation.
So why is CCP implementing a system that will undoubtedly lead to even less ISK in the system? Now that being said, we will certainly see prices rising if null sec does not take advantage of the massive industrial advantages it is being handed in the next couple blogs. dumb guess here: when so many of EVE's players are lurking, loner high sec dwellers, providing the opportunity to research BPOs and build things would help with new player retention, i think. most of the players commenting in this thread are experienced, intelligent, high-volume industrialists... but some people just simply want to play. what do you think Huh? I have no idea what you are on about.\ Can you clarify? Though I know the propagandists will answer on behalf of CCP, I would love to see a dev justify it. i'm just saying that you have a very broad outlook and deep understanding of these changes, like most people in this thread... but you're forgetting how this opens up gameplay to players who will appreciate merely having the option. for example, before and after these changes, how much industry gameplay is available to a new player who's just finished their tutorials.
thank you for acknowledging my comment (no facetiousness). I admit mine is a dumb guess, because the only thing i've ever produced from a blueprint is a hookbill. like two months ago. it was kind of exciting, actually. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
504
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:59:00 -
[1353] - Quote
I'm gonna huff, I'm gonna puff, I'm gonna blow your POS down! The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
406
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 14:08:00 -
[1354] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:standings characters are still worth the most as traders. a 5 million SP trade character with high faction standings is worth a billion ISK per million SP (easy)... 5 billion ISK for a potentially brand-spanking-new character. besides, using a standings character to pump out a 150 million ISK corporation at an ideal rate of 4/month for a yield of 600 million ISK [which barely covers a PLEX and has for some time] is bad anyway.
This is correct.
BTW, I wasn't kidding earlier in the thread -- if these changes incense any of you and you're planning on divesting yourselves of high-standings characters with 9.0+ in Caldari State standings, please contact me privately and sell me your character. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
370
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 14:35:00 -
[1355] - Quote
I must be too much of an old RPG player...I couldn't imagine just buying a char I have nothing invested in! |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
632
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 14:37:00 -
[1356] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Zappity wrote:Dinsdale, isn't it just possible (however unlikely) that CCP might be trying to end up with viable industry in all parts of space? By giving null sec the same amount of infinte slots as high sec, that was the final leveling of the playing field. I never had a problem with null, or wh space, getting 100% refine, or a huge bump in available research / mfg slots. I do have huge problems with the fact that it will now cost more, with a huge increase in risk, for high sec players, while we KNOW that null sec will be given huge advantages, just like they got with refining efficiency, that high sec can't compete with. The only reason there is no "viable" null sec industry, outside of the HUGE supercap industry, is that the sov null sec players can make so much more ISK doing other things. Now, if the null sec cartel *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. are to be believed, all their high sec mfg alts will be incentivized to head back to null and build right there, since there are big bonuses for doing so, and they can make good coin. Also, if the CSM gets its way, eventually enough people will be economically forced to move to null sec and null sec trade hubs may emerge. Of course, the typical null sec line member will be paying a slot tax (as I predicted many months ago) directly to the station owners aka the cartel leaders. And in the meantime, the true high sec industrialists will be in very dire straits, as any null sec industrialist can for example, fill his jf with 100,000 DC II's and flood Jita with them at no price that no high sec player can match.
You can't possibly be that ignorant about import/export costs. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move that many (or any realistic amount) of DCIIs from nulsec to hisec? Do you have any idea where the materials for T2 modules come from? Do you realize that every T2 module in the game is made from all of the base moon goos, which are themselves only available in certain regions?
Even CFC members have to go to Jita if they want to build anything T2 simply because that is the only place where you can get everything you need. The vast majority of moon goo is imported from nul to Jita, sold on the market, and the proceeds used to buy everything else. That is then imported back out to nulsec, another jf run, and put into a POS farm and reacted. Those products are then sent back up to hisec for sale.
All of these costs are added to the market price, simply because CCP thinks that moon goo reactions should only be able to be done in 0.3 or lower sec status systems.
Dinsdale, if you want to blame someone for the state of industry, look no further than CCP. They set the rules, not "nulsec cartels". You want cheaper T2? You could for example lobby the CSM and CCP for moon mining in hisec. The removal of POS anchoring restrictions in .8 and higher systems is the first step. They might actually think about it now. Coming soon... |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7000
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 14:44:00 -
[1357] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Dinsdale, if you want to blame someone for the state of industry, look no further than CCP. They set the rules, not "nulsec cartels". You want cheaper T2? You could for example lobby the CSM and CCP for moon mining in hisec. The removal of POS anchoring restrictions in .8 and higher systems is the first step. They might actually think about it now. you haven't plumbed the depths of dinsdale's insanity
dinsdale believes everything CCP does comes directly from orders from the nullsec cartels so saying "blame ccp not nullsec cartels" just throws an error in his brain Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Shamus en Divalone
Dip Dip Potatoe Chip
16
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:03:00 -
[1358] - Quote
Dear Dev,
Will the POS arrays be getting a balance of sorts? For instance will the 1.1 materials modifier (extra materials) be removed from Advanced ship arrays? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7001
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:10:00 -
[1359] - Quote
Shamus en Divalone wrote:Dear Dev,
Will the POS arrays be getting a balance of sorts? For instance will the 1.1 materials modifier (extra materials) be removed from Advanced ship arrays? this is a good point and should probably happen don't know why anyone ever thought that mineral modifier was a good idea Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
632
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:20:00 -
[1360] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:I'm curious to hear what bonuses could possibly justify me putting a 1.1 billion isk battleship BPO at risk, in a tower that's worth less than that by itself?
CCP has been going on a tear of late, devaluing things earned by veteran players. First it was refining SP (Which I want back, now that It'll only be half as effective as the skills I injected.), now NPC standings and remote jobs. I've never suspected CCP had it out for industrialists and miners, then we lost grav sites and it's been downhill ever since.
Devaluing skills? Are you kidding me? You had to train jack-all to get perfect refine in hisec, compared to my nulsec refining alt that had to train all but the specialty skills to 5, the specialty skills to 4, plug in a 1% refining implant, and refine at an improved refinery, because only certain Conquerable Outposts have 50% refineries. You deserve no reimbursement. Train the skills like everybody else.
Why would you put your BPO in a POS? Do the same darn thing you're already doing. The only thing you can do now that you won't be able to do this summer is remote ME/PE research. So put your BPO in a corp hanger at a research station and do that there. While you're at it, do your copying there, too. Take BPCs, move to production site. 2ez.
NPC standings requirements are only being removed for POS anchoring. Everything else still applies.
INDUSTRY CHANGES! ZOMG!!!1!!1 WUT DO>?!?!?!? QUITTINGNGNGNG RAAAAGGEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Coming soon... |
|
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
580
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:21:00 -
[1361] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: You can't possibly be that ignorant about import/export costs. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move that many (or any realistic amount) of DCIIs from nulsec to hisec?
I do. It's pointless building them there right now. The local markets are too small for high volume. What's interesting in this discussion, however, is the left wing thinking: This industry is struggling so in order to even the playing field we're going to impose a tax on those that are a success. That's basically what you're suggesting here. I see this all the time in government policies. It's how you wreck industries they were once thriving and impose higher costs on consumers.
|
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
112
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:27:00 -
[1362] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:One thing that I have yet to see addressed is why we need another ISK sink in the game. Regardless of what the cartel propagandists say, CCP's own latest economic presentation states explicitly that the economy is in a DEFLATIONARY state, when plexes are removed from the equation.
So why is CCP implementing a system that will undoubtedly lead to even less ISK in the system? Now that being said, we will certainly see prices rising if null sec does not take advantage of the massive industrial advantages it is being handed in the next couple blogs.
Hopefully so they can change other sinks already in game?
I would love to see clone costs be a big one time upgrade for more SP retention, then just say 100,000 isk per podding.
Really help promote PvP with veteran players and new bro's alike.
Also if they make implants something they are going to have us make in the future then that is another sink they would have to replace.
I think this is a good question that mostly needs the other 4 blogs for first. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7001
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:27:00 -
[1363] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Soldarius wrote: You can't possibly be that ignorant about import/export costs. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move that many (or any realistic amount) of DCIIs from nulsec to hisec?
I do. It's pointless building them there right now. The local markets are too small for high volume. What's interesting in this discussion, however, is the left wing thinking: This industry is struggling so in order to even the playing field we're going to impose a tax on those that are a success. That's basically what you're suggesting here. I see this all the time in government policies. It's how you wreck industries they were once thriving and impose higher costs on consumers. left wing economic thinking is demonstrably empirically superior to right-wing thinking though you are clearly a poor economic thinker of any stripe
here, the "government intervention" is an explicit attempt to rebalance industry, not "even the playing field" and not to raise revenue through taxes
the industry in a game like this is self-regulating and we do not care about imposing higher costs on consumers because it's a game and those higher costs may be beneficial to the game Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction
416
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:30:00 -
[1364] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Shamus en Divalone wrote:Dear Dev,
Will the POS arrays be getting a balance of sorts? For instance will the 1.1 materials modifier (extra materials) be removed from Advanced ship arrays? this is a good point and should probably happen don't know why anyone ever thought that mineral modifier was a good idea
For once, I agree with the goon. Frankly, i don't see why we have a dozen different shipyards (as an example) at all. One for sub caps and one for caps would make the most sense. You don't actually see much ship building at shipyards outside WH anyway, and I think that WH guys would enjoy the boost.
As far as Dinsdale being crazy.... eh.... Maybe it's just having played EvE as long as I have, but his paranoia does not seem entirely unfounded to me. I've seen too many times where CCP helped out one alliance or another in some way (not all of which became vast scandals for some reason) to entirely dismiss the idea that the alliances are trying to slant things to their favor via pals with jobs inside CCP, even if it's only to get insider knowledge to let them speculate more accurately before a given change drives prices up/down.
Weaselior wrote: the industry in a game like this is self-regulating and we do not care about imposing higher costs on consumers because it's a game and those higher costs may be beneficial to the game
The idea that industry will regulate itself has been disproved many times over, in the real world, at least.
Unless your thread is limited to how 'awesum!' Eve Online is, ISD will lock the thread.-á You will find it is particularly common if CCP might have to make a public response to the thread subject, as opposed to bury it in the GM que for the forseeable future and then prohibit telling anyone what the GM said, if it's ever answered at all. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
632
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:33:00 -
[1365] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote: Refining is getting a major nerf. Mineral compression is going away completely. instead there will only be 2 viable ways to move huge amounts of trit around in any sensible fashion. Rorqual->JF in Low/Null -or- Compression Array ->Freighter ->Station in High. Post patch no one is going to be shipping trit in an industrial that does any kind of capital production. Its going to have to stay in compressed rock form till it hits it final destination and then refined there with a specialized toon. Since Compression Arrays will be able to be anchored anywhere in High it only stands to reason that CCP needs to have the veld miners be able to use those arrays by also being able to compress their ore for logistics purposes. If all the veld miners had to suddenly start grinding standing to Anchor a stick what do you think would happen to the trit market and then New Eden industry as a whole? If the refining and mineral compression changes were happening at different times they might not have to do away with standings. My guess is that all this is leading to POS code changes down the road but they cant rewrite everything at once so some sacrifices have to be made to have the game at least be functional.
This person... show signs of intelligence. The two changes go hand-in-hand. Well done for figuring it out.
Coming soon... |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7001
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:35:00 -
[1366] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote: The idea that industry will regulate itself has been disproved many times over, in the real world, at least.
how irrelevant considering that:
1) you're using regulate in a completely different sense than i am 2) who the **** cares about the real world because i am discussing a video game Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Destiven Mare
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:43:00 -
[1367] - Quote
Direct Dev Question:
Will you be releasing any of the other blogs on industry prior to fanfest? If so, what are the release dates?
Will you answer any more questions posed in the comments section prior to fanfest? It's been awfully quiet since #947 Posted: 2014.04.16 15:56
Is this current blog with the "wait and see" approach it employs merely a teaser designed to force us to purchase live streams to fanfest if we are unable to travel? This smacks of baiting.
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
633
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 16:11:00 -
[1368] - Quote
Tora Hamaji wrote: - Make it possible to install jobs with from the Personal Hangar Array!
This. Please this.
Also, I would love to see the Corp Hanger / wallet divisions become more fluid and player defined. Letting us set up hanger and wallet divisions on a dynamic basis would revolutionize corp management. For example, why do I have to have wallet access to use an assembly array? But all that is for a Corp Management revamp blog.
Coming soon... |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
407
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 16:26:00 -
[1369] - Quote
Destiven Mare wrote:Direct Dev Question:
Will you be releasing any of the other blogs on industry prior to fanfest? If so, what are the release dates?
Will you answer any more questions posed in the comments section prior to fanfest? It's been awfully quiet since #947 Posted: 2014.04.16 15:56
Is this current blog with the "wait and see" approach it employs merely a teaser designed to force us to purchase live streams to fanfest if we are unable to travel? This smacks of baiting.
Standard definition fanfest stream is free. Only the HD stream costs money.
You could also just, y'know, wait patiently for the other blogs. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
633
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 16:27:00 -
[1370] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:Weaselior wrote: also, make something require battleship construction V and something require industrial construction v (like jump freighters!)
These skills seem to be missing: Destroyer Construction, Battlecruiser Construction, and Supercapital Construction. MDD
Agreed. Except, supers require cap ship construction 4, and titans cap ship construction 5. All capital ships are based off of that one skill. So no need for another.
Coming soon... |
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
122
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 16:32:00 -
[1371] - Quote
in the past three years or so I've seen a trend of the CCP devs moving away from customer focused development and towards a forced predetermined play style. I can't help but think that this has something to do with taking on venture capital.
With each expansion it seem I keep reading dev blogs that say something along the lines of " so we noticed that players are doing XY and Z but we want them to do AB and C so here is our plan to force them to play their game our way"
I guess with regards to this specific situation however I do have to recognize that you have been trying to destroy trade hubs since the game began.
This is an MMO and you seem to be trying to get players to not want to group up near each other. I'm not really sure what part of massive multiplayer you don't understand but this is a game of interactions with other players. It's also an industrial simulation and in the real world industry tends to group up together in tight clusters called cities where you have easy cheap access to everything you need.
You are trying to force players to do more stuff in low and null sec which means more moving **** around which not only means more expensive ships and mods and such but more game time spent manually jumping freighters long distances or moving expensive jump freighters around. I may not have met everyone that plays this game but in all the people that I've played with I have yet to meet one that enjoys jumping around and freighters are the worst and have only been made worse in recent years by new warp mechanics.
This summer industry expansion seem to be shaping up to make ships more expensive while decreasing the potential revenue from PvE activities for players with lower skill points meaning the ones who get more isk per hour from looting and salvaging than speed running. This mean on the whole the average player will more likely than not need to spend more time PvEing to be able to afford to loose ships PvPing
So log your data CCP devs and let me know in a few months if I am right. I'd love to see a dev blog when the winter expansion comes out comparing time spent PvEing and jumping crap around and time spent PvPing now versus then. I'm sure you guys have ways to figure out how much isk the average player can make per hour at a given task and compare that to ship prices and come up with some kind of index that gives a general feel for how many hours need to be spent to earn fully fit frig or BS or what ever. |
Kaius Fero
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 16:44:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kaius Fero wrote: Is really touching and sad story, I feel you. You had to pay tenbux, then work hard by mining the moons, defend the most safest space in eve universe so Larry and those nasty npc rats will not take it over.... you dudes seriously deserve a medal or more. Now I'm happy that I choose to stay in hi sec where every gate is camped by gankers, Jita is burning, cosmos missions are fun etc.
it is "the most safest space in eve universe" because we put in constant effort to keep it that way standing alone deklein is not particularly secure compared to more defensible regions, it's just we own it and we have fought our way to the top O'really? Wonder why you never move to another regions. I'm sure is not because you're space is surrounded by pets.. maybe you guys are lazy, right?
Weaselior wrote:Kaius Fero wrote: Now this is interesting. Is there a new dev blog announcing that they will open new space this summer? Really? Link pls!
its this one you idiot moons in .8 to 1.0 space are getting opened up for the first time as announced in this devblog did you even read it One of you fellow goon almost had a heart attack because somebody said something nasty about goons. But you know.. I'm easy, actually I like being called an idiot. Not because is against the rules, but retards have some serious discounts in npc space.. you should try it some times if you are serious about industry in hi sec.
PS: Don't get mad at me.. but you actually paid your tenbux or you were recruited in Jita local? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7004
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 16:49:00 -
[1373] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote: O'really? Wonder why you never move to another regions. I'm sure is not because you're space is surrounded by pets.. maybe you guys are lazy, right?
we move into hostile regions all the time and throw shitlords out on their ass its sort of what we do for fun Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
407
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 16:54:00 -
[1374] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:in the past three years or so I've seen a trend of the CCP devs moving away from customer focused development and towards a forced predetermined play style. I can't help but think that this has something to do with taking on venture capital.
With each expansion it seem I keep reading dev blogs that say something along the lines of " so we noticed that players are doing XY and Z but we want them to do AB and C so here is our plan to force them to play their game our way" This is not at all what's going on. What you are describing is a situation in which the status quo is always preferable; that no change is possible because players have settled into niches that exploit and lubricate an antiquated system, at the expense of others.
The proposed changes open up industry significantly and reward clever industrialists who are willing to perform research and endure risk to drive down their costs. Congestion-based fees make the margins more malleable; more fluid. The status quo rewards a static grind for standings, which, upon completion, open up the whole oyster at once. The only other advantage is proximity to a market hub, and with dirt-cheap couriers, even this is not particularly an advantage.
Consider me -- I live primarily in nullsec. However, for certain items which I require, it makes sense to manufacture them myself. Despite the fact that the highsec arm of GBS LOGISTICS AND FIVES SUPPORT [MY 5S] is a skeleton crew at best, I am able to produce at the same level that a grizzled, ten-year veteran of industry can, because the advantages are so binary and so easy to reach. I just courier things to a station very close to Jita, produce, and courier them back.
Post-change, things are not so easy for me. Congestion charges will drive the margins of what I want to make to unfeasibility in the market hub in which I am based. I am then forced to make a choice -- do I search for my own highsec fiefdom? Do I attempt to produce what I need to produce back in the nullsec fields, where costs are different? Do I give up and let others who have carved out their own fiefdoms produce items for me, allowing them to profit from my need? These decisions are good for Eve, and the only tragedy here is that the proposed changes weren't invented sooner. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Kaius Fero
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 16:55:00 -
[1375] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kaius Fero wrote: O'really? Wonder why you never move to another regions. I'm sure is not because you're space is surrounded by pets.. maybe you guys are lazy, right?
we move into hostile regions all the time and throw shitlords out on their ass its sort of what we do for fun For example ... Jita. Or Uedama. Oh.. sorry..that's the Marmites area :( |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
633
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 17:01:00 -
[1376] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Soldarius wrote: You can't possibly be that ignorant about import/export costs. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move that many (or any realistic amount) of DCIIs from nulsec to hisec?
I do. It's pointless building them there right now. The local markets are too small for high volume. What's interesting in this discussion, however, is the left wing thinking: This industry is struggling so in order to even the playing field we're going to impose a tax on those that are a success. That's basically what you're suggesting here. I see this all the time in government policies. It's how you wreck industries they were once thriving and impose higher costs on consumers.
How's that conservative right-wing unregulated banking sector working for you these days?
Coming soon... |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
122
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 17:05:00 -
[1377] - Quote
In my previous list of activities that I feel this expansion will increase I left out high sec PoS bashing. As we all know throwing **** at towers in sub caps for hours on end is everyone's favorite activity.
|
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
320
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 17:08:00 -
[1378] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Soldarius wrote: You can't possibly be that ignorant about import/export costs. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move that many (or any realistic amount) of DCIIs from nulsec to hisec?
I do. It's pointless building them there right now. The local markets are too small for high volume. What's interesting in this discussion, however, is the left wing thinking: This industry is struggling so in order to even the playing field we're going to impose a tax on those that are a success. That's basically what you're suggesting here. I see this all the time in government policies. It's how you wreck industries they were once thriving and impose higher costs on consumers. How's that conservative right-wing unregulated banking sector working for you these days?
Cmon guys, we got enough politics and crap to deal with in EVE without people bringing out RL issues. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
123
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 17:09:00 -
[1379] - Quote
Querns wrote: These decisions are good for Eve, and the only tragedy here is that the proposed changes weren't invented sooner.
we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
|
Tommy Knife
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 17:13:00 -
[1380] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:yada yada Pssst.. you look lonely, are you interested in dancing? I got some moves, you have the secure space. Are you interested in flowers? |
|
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Card Shark Industries
12
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 17:25:00 -
[1381] - Quote
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Weaselior wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote: That was not necessarily my point. My point was about the devaluation of the time spent on the grind. More towers and more labs means good things for the economy, I agree wholeheartedly. The way this change seems , to use an example, would be say a kickstarter where the original investors get the same product that is later given away for free. That's life, yes, but it is certainly going to upset the people who invested.
this is akin to how i paid like a thousand dollars for my computer three years ago and i could build a better one for $500 now sure i spent $500 more but i got the computer three years ago You do indeed have a point there. I withdraw my argument :) hmm no his wrong.if not way dont we just remowe al rec from the game like sp LP,so the only thing you need is to gett monny for titan,O yes bay plex insta titan pilot sounds cool but not sure for howe longe, |
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
504
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 17:29:00 -
[1382] - Quote
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Weaselior wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote: That was not necessarily my point. My point was about the devaluation of the time spent on the grind. More towers and more labs means good things for the economy, I agree wholeheartedly. The way this change seems , to use an example, would be say a kickstarter where the original investors get the same product that is later given away for free. That's life, yes, but it is certainly going to upset the people who invested.
this is akin to how i paid like a thousand dollars for my computer three years ago and i could build a better one for $500 now sure i spent $500 more but i got the computer three years ago You do indeed have a point there. I withdraw my argument :) hmm no his wrong.if not way dont we just remowe al rec from the game like sp LP,so the only thing you need is to gett monny for titan,O yes bay plex insta titan pilot sounds cool but not sure for howe longe,
Yes The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction
419
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 17:32:00 -
[1383] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:In my previous list of activities that I feel this expansion will increase I left out high sec PoS bashing. As we all know throwing **** at towers in sub caps for hours on end is everyone's favorite activity.
Assuming it's not a large dickstar and you throw subcaps at it and do nothing for hours. The 'Tar Baby'' variant can be particularly aggravating that way: webbed, scramed, and unable to target a damn thing until eventually the three missile launchers get pointed at you. And, yes, larges can do that to a very large number of people at once.
Unless your thread is limited to how 'awesum!' Eve Online is, ISD will lock the thread.-á You will find it is particularly common if CCP might have to make a public response to the thread subject, as opposed to bury it in the GM que for the forseeable future and then prohibit telling anyone what the GM said, if it's ever answered at all. |
Strot Harn
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 17:39:00 -
[1384] - Quote
Given the interest in rationalizing "Extra Materials", I wonder (or hope) if a similar rationalization will take place in the DB with the location of Tech I items needed to Manufacture Tech II items.
For instance, the usual location to find the underlying Tech I item is at "BLD Tech 1 Item". For instance, To make a vulture, query "BLD Tech 1 item" and the return is a Ferox.
However, if you do this for say a Veldspar Mining Crystal II, the return value is null, since for some reason "Veldspar Mining Crystal I" is stored as "BLD Component 2" (after Hypersynaptics Fibers, BLD component 1).
This make it difficult to write code to check for the underlying Tech I item.
Any hints if this will be addressed in the future? |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
389
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 19:02:00 -
[1385] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Gospadin wrote:What is your plan for T2 BPOs? T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners. And, I should think that the same argument that many players have against "reimbursement for the standings grind" should really apply here: The owners of T2 BPO's have enjoyed the benefits and profit for years. They have been long since fully compensated for their investment. However, to help reduce the sting, I don't mind suggesting to convert each T2 BPO to a number of limited run BPCs (say, 100 copies or so). Do people suggesting T2 BPOs be removed even realize what they're suggesting? It's not some kind of a privilege system that only old players are allowed to use. They're an item like any other which has been traded and changed hands many times since they were seeded to the game. Quit your whining and be happy there is an invention system. T2 BPOs aren't all that what people make them out to be. lol... this is always the same defence made by T2 BPO owners... over and over again. But, only a small handful of the T2 BPOs which were seeded by the lottery have ever been made publicly available for trade over the years; most of them remain a perk of the original owners and/or their friends.
And, if the T2 BPO's "aren't all that what people make them out to be", then why always the objection to removing them from the game?
Accept that you have already received full value for the use of T2 BPOs over the years, and accept that certain old features should be removed, when long past their time of productively contributing to the game. And, please stop your whining. You should be grateful that you have been able to milk this feature for so many years.
|
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
698
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 19:19:00 -
[1386] - Quote
Querns wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:in the past three years or so I've seen a trend of the CCP devs moving away from customer focused development and towards a forced predetermined play style. I can't help but think that this has something to do with taking on venture capital.
With each expansion it seem I keep reading dev blogs that say something along the lines of " so we noticed that players are doing XY and Z but we want them to do AB and C so here is our plan to force them to play their game our way" This is not at all what's going on. What you are describing is a situation in which the status quo is always preferable; that no change is possible because players have settled into niches that exploit and lubricate an antiquated system, at the expense of others. The proposed changes open up industry significantly and reward clever industrialists who are willing to perform research and endure risk to drive down their costs. Congestion-based fees make the margins more malleable; more fluid. The status quo rewards a static grind for standings, which, upon completion, open up the whole oyster at once. The only other advantage is proximity to a market hub, and with dirt-cheap couriers, even this is not particularly an advantage. Consider me -- I live primarily in nullsec. However, for certain items which I require, it makes sense to manufacture them myself. Despite the fact that the highsec arm of GBS LOGISTICS AND FIVES SUPPORT [MY 5S] is a skeleton crew at best, I am able to produce at the same level that a grizzled, ten-year veteran of industry can, because the advantages are so binary and so easy to reach. I just courier things to a station very close to Jita, produce, and courier them back. Post-change, things are not so easy for me. Congestion charges will drive the margins of what I want to make to unfeasibility in the market hub in which I am based. I am then forced to make a choice -- do I search for my own highsec fiefdom? Do I attempt to produce what I need to produce back in the nullsec fields, where costs are different? Do I give up and let others who have carved out their own fiefdoms produce items for me, allowing them to profit from my need? These decisions are good for Eve, and the only tragedy here is that the proposed changes weren't invented sooner. +1 for a good post.
Personally I'm not really delighted by the changes, because they will likely make industry require more time, than I can invest in the game in the predictable future. So Im probably going to just unsub my indy ccounts for the time being.
I got into industry last year, but looking at my time budget, I certainly wouldn't have, if these informations had been available a year from now. Still it was fun for the time it lasted. Remove insurance. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
12
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 19:34:00 -
[1387] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Gospadin wrote:What is your plan for T2 BPOs? T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners. And, I should think that the same argument that many players have against "reimbursement for the standings grind" should really apply here: The owners of T2 BPO's have enjoyed the benefits and profit for years. They have been long since fully compensated for their investment. However, to help reduce the sting, I don't mind suggesting to convert each T2 BPO to a number of limited run BPCs (say, 100 copies or so). Do people suggesting T2 BPOs be removed even realize what they're suggesting? It's not some kind of a privilege system that only old players are allowed to use. They're an item like any other which has been traded and changed hands many times since they were seeded to the game. Quit your whining and be happy there is an invention system. T2 BPOs aren't all that what people make them out to be. lol... this is always the same defence made by T2 BPO owners... over and over again. But, only a small handful of the T2 BPOs which were seeded by the lottery have ever been made publicly available for trade over the years; most of them remain a perk of the original owners and/or their friends. And, if the T2 BPO's "aren't all that what people make them out to be", then why always the objection to removing them from the game? Accept that you have already received full value for the use of T2 BPOs over the years, and accept that certain old features should be removed, when long past their time of productively contributing to the game. And, please stop your whining. You should be grateful that you have been able to milk this feature for so many years.
I give that having 1 T2BPO is not really an advantage. It will be post patch if the copy speed is reduced to below the manufacturing time. (though not by much, but still really CCP) Their main advantage is when pools of owners congregate(you know what I'm talking about) and use them to control the low volume markets. Low volume markets are where new players and low SP indy players need to get into the game. not in the high volume side of things. and thats where the true unfair advantage to them come in.
What really bothers me is the confusion of not having them seeded to the market like T1's. For a new player that is just getting into industry they think ok I can make this T1 now and later I'll get the T2BPO for it and start making that. they train manufacturing skills to be able to produce those T2 items only to find out down the road that there are no T2BPOs attainable at their level. that really they should have become inventors if they really wanted to make a profit. Lets face it Eve industry is hard enough as it is with getting the bpo's, getting the mats, finding a market, playing both the buy and sell markets for both your building mats and your finished goods and thats not even getting into researched copy side of things if you really want to up your profits.
What CCP has created is 2 systems that dont work together that leads to lots of confusion about how things are built at that level of the game. The best solution that I can think to resolve this now is simply turn them into T2BPC's with the invention flag turned on. Where ever they've been researched to is where they'll be at forever. Whether that can be coded I dont know, but it would force them to have to be invented to be copied. they could then take all that useless crap like r.db's out of the game and just move on. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
389
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 19:38:00 -
[1388] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: Sure, but how would you feel if you bought the computer last month for $1,000 and the company announced yesterday that the price was now $500, for a better model?
Would you still feel that you got full value for your $1,000?
There are quite a few newer players who have been painfully doing the standings grind, and have not yet been able to benefit substantially from it.
i would say that it had been on sale for ten years at $1,000 and a price cut and better products is an unalloyed good thing so if i can't return it i shouldn't want everyone else to be worse off just because i am any player who did the standings grind has their standings character which retains significant value and have lost nothing How does reimbursing all players for the standings grind make anyone "worse off"? Whether you are an older player or a newer player, a reimbursement of some sort would benefit everyone. Just as when the learning skills were removed from the game - everyone got back the invested SP, regardless of how much each individual player benefited from having those skills trained up for years, or only days. No one lost; everyone won.
And, I am curious as to what "significant value" the standings grind will still have for the average high-sec industrialist player. I think that this is the reason why these players are a bit upset about this particular change - they do not perceive the value of which you spoke. I know that you know quite a bit about the economics side of the game, so can you please list the remaining value in high faction standings? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7008
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 19:45:00 -
[1389] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: How does reimbursing all players for the standings grind make anyone "worse off"? Whether you are an older player or a newer player, a reimbursement of some sort would benefit everyone. Just as when the learning skills were removed from the game - everyone got back the invested SP, regardless of how much each individual player benefited from having those skills trained up for years, or only days. No one lost; everyone won.
And, I am curious as to what "significant value" the standings grind will still have for the average high-sec industrialist player. I think that this is the reason why these players are a bit upset about this particular change - they do not perceive the value of which you spoke. I know that you know quite a bit about the economics side of the game, so can you please list the remaining value in high faction standings?
high faction standings are necessary for any trader for cutting broker fees and taxes in jita (or their preferred station) as those fees eat up huge parts of their margin
since bots, once caught, can't be sold standings characters for sale are now rare and they're extremely valuable because there's a lot more traders who want a standings character but don't want to grind than there are characters for sale Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
408
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 20:00:00 -
[1390] - Quote
I wonder how many people in this thread didn't even know that trading incurred taxes, and that they could be ameliorated by having high standings. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 20:14:00 -
[1391] - Quote
Querns wrote: The status quo rewards a static grind for standings, which, upon completion, open up the whole oyster at once.
Yea, noone ever bought the participation of a high standing character in his corp to deploy a pos, no interaction or gameplay to find here folks, move along.
I mean the way you are arging you could be arguing in favor of abolishing skill requirements on t2 mods or the prohibitive cost of capships...
Not everything that makes the game more streamlined is good, especially if its combined "we want players to do XYZ".
I mean what is the bottom line here, are you really interested in null being nerfed for the carebears a few years from now?
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7010
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 20:31:00 -
[1392] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote: Yea, noone ever bought the participation of a high standing character in his corp to deploy a pos, no interaction or gameplay to find here folks, move along.
hiring someone to sit in a corp for seven days is not gameplay, it is a workaround for a terrible system
just because people have found ways around terrible systems is no reason to keep them in existence Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
408
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 20:38:00 -
[1393] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:Querns wrote: The status quo rewards a static grind for standings, which, upon completion, open up the whole oyster at once.
Yea, noone ever bought the participation of a high standing character in his corp to deploy a pos, no interaction or gameplay to find here folks, move along. I mean the way you are arging you could be arguing in favor of abolishing skill requirements on t2 mods or the prohibitive cost of capships... Not everything that makes the game more streamlined is good, especially if its combined "we want players to do XYZ". I mean what is the bottom line here, are you really interested in null being nerfed for the carebears a few years from now?
If you had bothered to read the entire post, you would have happened upon the part where I said:
Quote: players have settled into niches that exploit and lubricate an antiquated system, at the expense of others.
Character sales and corp sales for standings for the purpose of anchoring highsec pos are an example of a niche lubricating an antiquated system. Furthermore, the benefits are STILL binary -- you spend some isk to shortcut the standings grind, and you have the whole oyster.
A better use of standings is, as we'd been talking about, market taxes. I possess a character with decent Caldari State standings; somewhere around the 6 or 7 area, I forget exactly. However, this isn't as good as it could be -- I can reap greater rewards by either running missions to increase my standings (barftastic!) or purchasing a character with higher standings (WTB caldari state 9.0+ character).
Attempting to equate this with abolishing skill requirements or ship costs is a false equivalency. Neither of these are binary benefits; skills (in most cases) continue to benefit the thing for which they are required, and costs are obviously a non-binary barrier to entry. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Nlex
Domini Canium
30
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 21:25:00 -
[1394] - Quote
Standings required for anchoring a POS are as much RP and lore item as they are a gameplay mechanic. Removing them would mean that suddenly, Empires let just about anyone plunk a POS at their moons. Why would they do that, especially when CCP's recent plot developments hint at Empires being oh so afraid of capsuleers' rising power? |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 21:52:00 -
[1395] - Quote
Nlex wrote:Standings required for anchoring a POS are as much RP and lore item as they are a gameplay mechanic. Removing them would mean that suddenly, Empires let just about anyone plunk a POS at their moons. Why would they do that, especially when CCP's recent plot developments hint at Empires being oh so afraid of capsuleers' rising power?
Maybe thats the whole point. Our rising power means we dont need permission of the empire's to anchor a tower. See we got this lore thing sorted! |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 22:15:00 -
[1396] - Quote
Querns wrote: Attempting to equate this with abolishing skill requirements or ship costs is a false equivalency. Neither of these are binary benefits; skills (in most cases) continue to benefit the thing for which they are required, and costs are obviously a non-binary barrier to entry.
Where do you see the big difference between skill requirement and standing mechanics? A player with standing still benefits from the ability to set up another pos, moreover he can loose them ==> gameplay!
That they are antiquated in a bad sense is just your opninion, atm more an appeal to authority. And dont start with niche, how many players fly a titan compared to all players?
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 22:25:00 -
[1397] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Barton Breau wrote: Yea, noone ever bought the participation of a high standing character in his corp to deploy a pos, no interaction or gameplay to find here folks, move along.
hiring someone to sit in a corp for seven days is not gameplay, it is a workaround for a terrible system just because people have found ways around terrible systems is no reason to keep them in existence
Ones workaround is another ones gameplay as the classic says, quoted loosely.
I do think we should finally learn that lesson after 5 years of mmos tanking. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
409
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 22:32:00 -
[1398] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:Querns wrote: Attempting to equate this with abolishing skill requirements or ship costs is a false equivalency. Neither of these are binary benefits; skills (in most cases) continue to benefit the thing for which they are required, and costs are obviously a non-binary barrier to entry.
Where do you see the big difference between skill requirement and standing mechanics? A player with standing still benefits from the ability to set up another pos, moreover he can loose them ==> gameplay! And when the proposed changes take effect, even more people can put up a POS, and then possibly lose them. That's a heck of a lot more of your vaunted GAMEPLAY than there would be if only standingshavers can erect POS. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
409
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 22:33:00 -
[1399] - Quote
Or is "gameplay" only supposed to be available to those who meet the stringent requirements of "have rubbed their face against the cheese grater of Eve: Online standings for a sufficient amount of time?" This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 22:41:00 -
[1400] - Quote
Querns wrote:Barton Breau wrote:Querns wrote: Attempting to equate this with abolishing skill requirements or ship costs is a false equivalency. Neither of these are binary benefits; skills (in most cases) continue to benefit the thing for which they are required, and costs are obviously a non-binary barrier to entry.
Where do you see the big difference between skill requirement and standing mechanics? A player with standing still benefits from the ability to set up another pos, moreover he can loose them ==> gameplay! And when the proposed changes take effect, even more people can put up a POS, and then possibly lose them. That's a heck of a lot more of your vaunted GAMEPLAY than there would be if only standingshavers can erect POS.
Didnt you just repeat the same assumption on what is the right gameplay in your opinion without adding anything new?
Way of avoiding the question... |
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 22:42:00 -
[1401] - Quote
Querns wrote:Or is "gameplay" only supposed to be available to those who meet the stringent requirements of "have rubbed their face against the cheese grater of Eve: Online standings for a sufficient amount of time?"
You mean like ships are available to those that have the skills and enough money? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
409
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 22:46:00 -
[1402] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:Querns wrote:Barton Breau wrote: A player with standing still benefits from the ability to set up another pos, moreover he can loose them ==> gameplay!
And when the proposed changes take effect, even more people can put up a POS, and then possibly lose them. That's a heck of a lot more of your vaunted GAMEPLAY than there would be if only standingshavers can erect POS. Didnt you just repeat the same assumption on what is the right gameplay in your opinion without adding anything new? Way of avoiding the question... You implied that losing a POS is gameplay. Hence, more people losing a POS = more gameplay. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 22:52:00 -
[1403] - Quote
Querns wrote:Barton Breau wrote:Querns wrote:Barton Breau wrote: A player with standing still benefits from the ability to set up another pos, moreover he can loose them ==> gameplay!
And when the proposed changes take effect, even more people can put up a POS, and then possibly lose them. That's a heck of a lot more of your vaunted GAMEPLAY than there would be if only standingshavers can erect POS. Didnt you just repeat the same assumption on what is the right gameplay in your opinion without adding anything new? Way of avoiding the question... You implied that losing a POS is gameplay. Hence, more people losing a POS = more gameplay.
I didnt, i meant standings.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
409
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 22:53:00 -
[1404] - Quote
Maybe I should put it a different way. Given the cheese grater properties of acquiring standings in Eve: Online, name reasons why requiring standings for a POS is a good idea.
NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so other should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason. NOTE: This is not equivalent to the process of conquering conquerable nullsec. Conquerable nullsec can be taken from those who conquer it; your standings are yours forever. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 22:59:00 -
[1405] - Quote
Having a POS is no small thing and I believe it supposed to be difficult to have one.
There are hundreds of small corp descriptions where you can read that they enthusiastically plan to set up a POS, --- one day. Most of them will not manage. It is hard. Yet, it is one of the few things which are easier for a small dedicated corp than for a large one. And having a POS is one of the rare goals corps have in EVE.
Removing the standing requirement will "providing everybody with a POS", but it is also removing one of the few accomplishments for corps. The coolness factor will be gone. You can no longer proudly advertise that your corp has a POS because you did it!
Taking the Xmas money from your grandma to buy a plex, changing the ISK into a tower, training one day for anchoring, ---tada, POS! This is your idea of "new and fresh game play"?
And for those arguing that building up standing is a useless grind: some of us like flying missions. We do this even as a corp activity. It is fun doing this together and we help new members through their first steps flying L2 or L3. It is a way to learn about the necessary skills, about ships and basic tactics.
The alternative created by removing standings feels bland and removes an iconing accomplishment for corps. Do not do it.
On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
409
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 23:02:00 -
[1406] - Quote
Altessa Post wrote:Having a POS is no small thing and I believe it supposed to be difficult to have one.
There are hundreds of small corp descriptions where you can read that they enthusiastically plan to set up a POS, --- one day. Most of them will not manage. It is hard. Yet, it is one of the few things which are easier for a small dedicated corp than for a large one. And having a POS is one of the rare goals corps have in EVE.
Removing the standing requirement will "providing everybody with a POS", but it is also removing one of the few accomplishments for corps. The coolness factor will be gone. You can no longer proudly advertise that your corp has a POS because you did it!
Taking the Xmas money from your grandma to buy a plex, changing the ISK into a tower, training one day for anchoring, ---tada, POS! This is your idea of "new and fresh game play"?
And for those arguing that building up standing is a useless grind: some of us like flying missions. We do this even as a corp activity. It is fun doing this together and we help new members through their first steps flying L2 or L3. It is a way to learn about the necessary skills, about ships and basic tactics.
The alternative created by removing standings feels bland and removes an iconing accomplishment for corps. Do not do it.
This vignette is amusing, but does not reflect reality particularly well. In reality, you skip the grinding process and pony up ISK for a corporation or a standings dude and short-circuit the entire process.
Show me a corporation who honestly expects every one of their members to maintain 6.0-7.0 standings with a racial faction, so as to not hinder their ability to erect a POS, and I will show you a corporation of addled fools. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1119
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 23:04:00 -
[1407] - Quote
Altessa Post wrote:Having a POS is no small thing and I believe it supposed to be difficult to have one.
There are hundreds of small corp descriptions where you can read that they enthusiastically plan to set up a POS, --- one day. Most of them will not manage. It is hard. Yet, it is one of the few things which are easier for a small dedicated corp than for a large one. And having a POS is one of the rare goals corps have in EVE.
Removing the standing requirement will "providing everybody with a POS", but it is also removing one of the few accomplishments for corps. The coolness factor will be gone. You can no longer proudly advertise that your corp has a POS because you did it!
Taking the Xmas money from your grandma to buy a plex, changing the ISK into a tower, training one day for anchoring, ---tada, POS! This is your idea of "new and fresh game play"?
And for those arguing that building up standing is a useless grind: some of us like flying missions. We do this even as a corp activity. It is fun doing this together and we help new members through their first steps flying L2 or L3. It is a way to learn about the necessary skills, about ships and basic tactics.
The alternative created by removing standings feels bland and removes an iconing accomplishment for corps. Do not do it.
I don't get this, so taking grandma's Christmas money to buy one plex and have a POS is terrible and wrong, but doing the same with 2 plex, one for the tower and mods and the other for someone to sit in your corp for a while, is somehow desirable?
If you like flying missions, great, this isn't stopping you in any way. If anything it's removing those that don't want to do it but are just for dropping a tower from competing with you. Be grateful CCP decided to buff your regular efforts.
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 23:06:00 -
[1408] - Quote
Querns wrote:Maybe I should put it a different way. Given the cheese grater properties of acquiring standings in Eve: Online, name reasons why requiring standings for a POS is a good idea.
NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so other should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason. NOTE: This is not equivalent to the process of conquering conquerable nullsec. Conquerable nullsec can be taken from those who conquer it; your standings are yours forever.
The same reasons we dont give players lv5 skills off the bat, or that capship skills have significantly greater multipliers. Not even mentioning lore or rp, as that is widely laughed at.
1. note - i was not planning to mention it, but it was mentioned in this thread, so ok. 2. note - you can also loose standings by doing stupid stuff, much like sov or embryos :)
Dont get me wrong, more than standings for pos i am interested in the seemingly streamlining happy attitude you, your friends and the devs seem to have atm, and the arguments used to justify it. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1119
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 23:09:00 -
[1409] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:Querns wrote:Maybe I should put it a different way. Given the cheese grater properties of acquiring standings in Eve: Online, name reasons why requiring standings for a POS is a good idea.
NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so other should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason. NOTE: This is not equivalent to the process of conquering conquerable nullsec. Conquerable nullsec can be taken from those who conquer it; your standings are yours forever. The same reasons we dont give players lv5 skills off the bat, or that capship skills have significantly greater multipliers. Not even mentioning lore or rp, as that is widely laughed at. Character skills are for character progression, and here they serve the greater purpose of personalizing a character through their abilities selectively. Standings can have a similar effect, but have no reason to be in any way related to POS placement to retain that effect. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 23:21:00 -
[1410] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Character skills are for character progression, and here they serve the greater purpose of personalizing a character through their abilities selectively. Standings can have a similar effect, but have no reason to be in any way related to POS placement to retain that effect.
How does one arrive at that conclusion? I am genuinely interested, where you see the disconnect of -5.0 + you dont get shot at, fraternize with other people of 7 + and you can have a CONCORD protected pos in highsec. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1119
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 00:12:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Character skills are for character progression, and here they serve the greater purpose of personalizing a character through their abilities selectively. Standings can have a similar effect, but have no reason to be in any way related to POS placement to retain that effect. How does one arrive at that conclusion? I am genuinely interested, where you see the disconnect of -5.0 + you dont get shot at, fraternize with other people of 7 + and you can have a CONCORD protected pos in highsec. Concord protection of anything else that is concord protected is not contingent upon faction standings so why should POS be an exception? Really by that token if there is any application of settings it should at best mirror faction navy KOS standings by your logic, meaning a day old alt can still pop up a tower just as well as they can wander the whole of highsec.
How do you connect the idea of being disallowed access with privileged status? And in what way does that actually justify the privilege being maintained as an exclusivity?
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
25330
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 00:32:00 -
[1412] - Quote
I will probably never own a POS myself but I have to say that removing the standing requirement to anchor a POS in High Security is a very bad idea.
For as long as I've been playing this game, being able to place a POS in High Security is a badge of honor. If a change to the standing requirement is actually needed, (and it's not) then just allow the Corp members modified standing to be used in the Corp standing average. Opening up the rest of High Security to allow POS to be anchored is all fine and dandy but it needs to follow the original standing mechanic for anchoring, ie, same amount of corp standing as the system security level.
What I see happening here is an entire type of player run business being snuffed out of existence. This new change doesn't help the smaller corps and alliances that have worked hard at building up and maintaining Faction standings in order to have a POS in High Sec.
Opening up High Sec systems to anyone with no standing whatsoever to anchor a POS just means more moons for the big power-block Alliances to control.
DMC
Faction Standing Repair Plan | California Eve Players | (Proposal) Bring Back 'The Endless Battle' Missions |
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
139
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 00:50:00 -
[1413] - Quote
I see a lot of talk of POS bashing and noobs spamming POS,s come the change but ask yourself this... After the change why even put up a POS in high-sec? You can just move five to eight jumps from Jita and have all the slots you want for less than the monthly cost of a POS.
Personally I have a few systems on my radar and after the change I will most likely take my POS down and avoid the hassles of having it while doing industry in the total safety of a station. This change is actually going to reduce the number of POS,s in high-sec.
|
Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 00:53:00 -
[1414] - Quote
My thoughts, in no particular order:
The big plan
I like the direction and goals stated. As an industrialist, it does increase my risks in some areas, but also expands on opportunities. I'm excited about being in industry in a way I haven't been for a long time now. However, as with most changes, it has the potential to be done really well or very badly, and there is not enough detail in this first blog to judge. So I will largely reserve judgement until the more detailed blogs arrive.
Cleaning Market Groups
All sounds sensible, liking the icons especially, as icon pattern matching should help a bit when trying to work out which section your item might be under.
Stopping the damage
Loving this change, gets rid of needless complexity and all the odd behaviors that occurred around this mechanic. Only concern is that the volume gets adjusted along with the quantity, but that has already been mentioned.
Removal of Extra Materials
CCP Ytterbium wrote:All extra materials are turned into regular materials, that will indeed be now affected by skills and waste. Except for Tech I ships and items, as such:
- You should never see a Paladin require 2 Apocalypses to build
- You should never see a Large shield Extender II require 0.75 Large Shield Extender I to build
I support the concept of tidying up the current mess that is the Raw/Extra material requirements (especially the messy way they are implemented in the static data). However, this response makes it clear that we will still have some materials that behave like Extra Materials (i.e. not subject to waste), even if they are no longer called Extra Materials.
Whatever the new rules are for what counts as a non-waste material need to be clearly shown in the bill of materials (and easily identifiable in the static data dump). Otherwise, you will simply be replacing one form of obfuscation with another. I'd also hope that this has been implemented as some sort of "no-waste" flag that could be applied to anything, rather than a special-casing in the code for Tech 1 items. Otherwise it'll significantly limit design flexibility further down the line.
Assuming these issues have been designed for properly, it sounds like what we'd end up with is a rationalized list of Extra Materials with an improved back-end implementation, rather than the complete removal of Extra Materials. Which is fine. If the above concerns have not yet been considered, I would encourage them to be.
Cost Scaling System
Sounds good in principle, bringing back the connection between cost and demand is very welcome. I never understood why it was removed when the current slot system was introduced. Will wait on the detail blog to judge how it will work in practice.
Starbase Changes
Loving the removal of anchoring and standing restrictions. Addressing the issue of abandoned starbases is a must to go alongside this though.
There has been a lot of discussion in the thread already about whether wardecs are enough, and what should count as "abandoned". However, we've had a definition of "abandoned" for anchored (but offline) objects since 2008. While starbases being an exception while online is perfectly reasonable, I've never understood why they were still an exception when offline, especially since the changes to anchoring times made the time difference between re-activating an offline starbase and re-deploying a removed starbase much less.
Placeholding moons with offline starbases would still be viable - if the real estate is valuable to you, visiting the tower once every 30 days is not an unreasonable imposition. People who do this, and starbases within the 30-day window, would still offer a perfectly viable target set for any of the more interesting hacking mechanics that have been discussed.
As to why not just leave them up indefinitely and let people take them down with wardecs? It adds a barrier to entry based on how popular the area used to be, or just how long the moons have been available for junk towers to accrue at, and grinding down the tower of someone who hasn't logged in, and may never log in again, does not add gameplay, it adds a grind. As we are removing the standings grind, it makes sense to remove this HP grind as well. This would do nothing to block conflict around genuinely active towers with players that may fight back, or at least be materially affected by your actions.
Losing the safety of keeping blueprints in the station is a concern, but this has been acknowledged, so I will await details on the promised improvements to copying and the starbase facilities before judging this.
New UI
Looks very swish, but will need to wait for the detail blog and get my hands on it to really judge how the workflow handles. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 00:57:00 -
[1415] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:standings characters are still worth the most as traders.
Not for long, I'd wager. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They've confirmed standings, and faction standings in particular I guess, are a mechanic that no one wants or likes and are actively removing it from anything they touch. How long until they they remove it from broker fees? The sooner the better, honestly. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1119
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:02:00 -
[1416] - Quote
Volar Kang wrote:I see a lot of talk of POS bashing and noobs spamming POS,s come the change but ask yourself this... After the change why even put up a POS in high-sec? You can just move five to eight jumps from Jita and have all the slots you want for less than the monthly cost of a POS.
Personally I have a few systems on my radar and after the change I will most likely take my POS down and avoid the hassles of having it while doing industry in the total safety of a station. This change is actually going to reduce the number of POS,s in high-sec. Well, that takes care of that then.If you are correct then POS have become excessively devalued and any remaining value they may have added to standings would be negligible at best.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
390
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:15:00 -
[1417] - Quote
Volar Kang wrote:I see a lot of talk of POS bashing and noobs spamming POS,s come the change but ask yourself this... After the change why even put up a POS in high-sec? You can just move five to eight jumps from Jita and have all the slots you want for less than the monthly cost of a POS.
Personally I have a few systems on my radar and after the change I will most likely take my POS down and avoid the hassles of having it while doing industry in the total safety of a station. This change is actually going to reduce the number of POS,s in high-sec. Probably true for POSes used for research and copying, but maybe not for those used for manufacturing.
I know that I'm certainly NOT going to be putting my BPOs in a high-sec POS. I think that it is highly unlikely that CCP can make the reward worth the risk. The mere fact that labs are attached to the POS will ensure an automatic wardec of any small research or industrial corp. Even if you move your BPO's out of the POS before the wardec starts, cancelling ME/PE/copy jobs in progress and the POS downtime due to the wardec will probably erase any benefit.
But, for manufacturing, I can use BPCs in a POS. Unless CCP makes it possible for other players to see exactly what is being manufacturing, it will be difficult to determine if it is worth wardec'cing the POS owners. In this case, the reward vs risk ratio may be acceptable. |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:56:00 -
[1418] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Urziel99 wrote:I'm curious to hear what bonuses could possibly justify me putting a 1.1 billion isk battleship BPO at risk, in a tower that's worth less than that by itself?
CCP has been going on a tear of late, devaluing things earned by veteran players. First it was refining SP (Which I want back, now that It'll only be half as effective as the skills I injected.), now NPC standings and remote jobs. I've never suspected CCP had it out for industrialists and miners, then we lost grav sites and it's been downhill ever since. Devaluing skills? Are you kidding me? You had to train jack-all to get perfect refine in hisec, compared to my nulsec refining alt that had to train all but the specialty skills to 5, the specialty skills to 4, plug in a 1% refining implant, and refine at an improved refinery, because only certain Conquerable Outposts have 50% refineries. You deserve no reimbursement. Train the skills like everybody else. Why would you put your BPO in a POS? Do the same darn thing you're already doing. The only thing you can do now that you won't be able to do this summer is remote ME/PE research. So put your BPO in a corp hanger at a research station and do that there. While you're at it, do your copying there, too. Take BPCs, move to production site. 2ez. NPC standings requirements are only being removed for POS anchoring. Everything else still applies. INDUSTRY CHANGES! ZOMG!!!1!!1 WUT DO>?!?!?!? QUITTINGNGNGNG RAAAAGGEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try again. I have all the skills trained on 4 accounts. I used to mine in nullsec with mining crystals before CCP broke the Exhumers cargo bays. http://eveboard.com/pilot/Urziel99 take a look for yourself. I only stopped mining in nullsec after CCP broke hidden belts.
As to your blather about BPO's in a POS We can remote build with BPO's and BPC's now. The only proviso is to make sure that the print and the materials are both in the same hangar division. I've done it with T1 and T2 mods for 2 years now.
Standings are however being changed if 6.66 can't give tax-free refines then those standings are by default worth less than they were pre-patch.
As to your last line, I expect such idiocy from TEST, you can tell your masters you have upheld their reputation for cluelessness. |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:01:00 -
[1419] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Volar Kang wrote:I see a lot of talk of POS bashing and noobs spamming POS,s come the change but ask yourself this... After the change why even put up a POS in high-sec? You can just move five to eight jumps from Jita and have all the slots you want for less than the monthly cost of a POS.
Personally I have a few systems on my radar and after the change I will most likely take my POS down and avoid the hassles of having it while doing industry in the total safety of a station. This change is actually going to reduce the number of POS,s in high-sec. Probably true for POSes used for research and copying, but maybe not for those used for manufacturing. I know that I'm certainly NOT going to be putting my BPOs in a high-sec POS. I think that it is highly unlikely that CCP can make the reward worth the risk. The mere fact that labs are attached to the POS will ensure an automatic wardec of any small research or industrial corp. Even if you move your BPO's out of the POS before the wardec starts, cancelling ME/PE/copy jobs in progress and the POS downtime due to the wardec will probably erase any benefit. But, for manufacturing, I can use BPCs in a POS. Unless CCP makes it possible for other players to see exactly what is being manufacturing, it will be difficult to determine if it is worth wardec'cing the POS owners. In this case, the reward vs risk ratio may be acceptable.
There are orders of magnitude more stations with manufacturing services than research. The run of the mill build pos may go away without substantial bonuses (except T3 science and industry which can't be done in station.) But ME/PE stations will likely be max congested in short order, there are only about 10% of all stations that have those services. |
ST Mahan
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:12:00 -
[1420] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Nlex wrote:Standings required for anchoring a POS are as much RP and lore item as they are a gameplay mechanic. Removing them would mean that suddenly, Empires let just about anyone plunk a POS at their moons. Why would they do that, especially when CCP's recent plot developments hint at Empires being oh so afraid of capsuleers' rising power? Maybe thats the whole point. Our rising power means we dont need permission of the empire's to anchor a tower. See we got this lore thing sorted!
I suspect we will see more of this as the current and other expansions roll out. |
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 04:45:00 -
[1421] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Barton Breau wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Character skills are for character progression, and here they serve the greater purpose of personalizing a character through their abilities selectively. Standings can have a similar effect, but have no reason to be in any way related to POS placement to retain that effect. How does one arrive at that conclusion? I am genuinely interested, where you see the disconnect of -5.0 + you dont get shot at, fraternize with other people of 7 + and you can have a CONCORD protected pos in highsec. Concord protection of anything else that is concord protected is not contingent upon faction standings so why should POS be an exception? Really by that token if there is any application of settings it should at best mirror faction navy KOS standings by your logic, meaning a day old alt can still pop up a tower just as well as they can wander the whole of highsec. How do you connect the idea of being disallowed access with privileged status? And in what way does that actually justify the privilege being maintained as an exclusivity?
If what you are saying would hold water , we would have to see concord fight faction troops around a -5.0 standing player.
Its interesting how you can see one thing as privilege and the sheer ability to fly in faction space not. |
Kitt Letor
Team Evil
85
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 06:40:00 -
[1422] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Rain6637 wrote:standings characters are still worth the most as traders. Not for long, I'd wager. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They've confirmed standings, and faction standings in particular I guess, are a mechanic that no one wants or likes and are actively removing it from anything they touch. How long until they they remove it from broker fees? The sooner the better, honestly. not any time soon. WTS high caldari standings character I've been meaning to work on trade skills |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14195
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 06:47:00 -
[1423] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Rain6637 wrote:standings characters are still worth the most as traders. Not for long, I'd wager. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They've confirmed standings, and faction standings in particular I guess, are a mechanic that no one wants or likes and are actively removing it from anything they touch. How long until they they remove it from broker fees? The sooner the better, honestly. I disagree directly. I'm thinking the high sec POS standings requirement was a move to proliferate industry, and the market standings taxes mechanic is not going away... because it doesn't have the problem of blocking players from trade gameplay.
if anything, the high sec POS standings removal was a move toward market's system where everyone can participate in market trades, but at different tax rates. (refine, build, research jobs at various tax rates, but everyone can do it) President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
92
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 07:20:00 -
[1424] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: I disagree directly. I'm thinking the high sec POS standings requirement was a move to proliferate industry, and the market standings taxes mechanic is not going away... because it doesn't have the problem of blocking players from trade gameplay.
if anything, the high sec POS standings removal was a move toward market's system where everyone can participate in market trades, but at different tax rates. (refine, build, research jobs at various tax rates, but everyone can do it)
No one was blocked from industry. You bought a pre-fab standings corp and setup your pos, or got standings yourself (or bought a standings char) if you wanted more flexibility. Maintaining your own standings was a slight edge and viable income source, but certainly nothing game breaking.
If the argument for removing standings for POS use is that standings are a lame mechanic, then the exact same argument holds for broker's fees.
If the argument was that it limited hisec POS use, that is demonstrably false. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14196
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 08:02:00 -
[1425] - Quote
and it was how easy to get a research slot for new players? President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Desash
The Extremely Norty Gankers Union
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 10:17:00 -
[1426] - Quote
Good changes for the most part but along with many others I'm slightly disappointed with the faction standings meaning nothing now with regards hi-sec POS's.
How about, as a concession to the corps who did the hard grind, that any player corporation with sufficiently high faction standings be allowed to use POS's modules that are currently restricted to 0.4 or below, maybe even allow moon mining.
Something like this:
In 1.0, 0.9 or 0.8 any player corporation can anchor a POS in accordance with the future mechanics presented to us here.
In 0.7, 0.6 or 0.5 a player corporation can anchor a POS and use Reactor Arrays and Moon Harvesting Arrays as long as they have and continue to maintain the standings required for that system as per current mechanics. Obviously limit the moon goo to R16's or worse.
I believe this could open up more 'risk v's reward' instances as well as maintain that wonderful standings grind content we enjoy so much. |
Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
126
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 10:42:00 -
[1427] - Quote
Querns wrote: This vignette is amusing, but does not reflect reality particularly well. In reality, you skip the grinding process and pony up ISK for a corporation or a standings dude and short-circuit the entire process.
Show me a corporation who honestly expects every one of their members to maintain 6.0-7.0 standings with a racial faction, so as to not hinder their ability to erect a POS, and I will show you a corporation of addled fools.
And yet, it creates game play. Setting up a POS became its own profession. Removing the standing restriction, removes content.
There where you want to have a POS for your own corp to which you are attached to, there is no other way then hard work. And yes, it is awefully difficult. It leads to decisions whether to accept new members or to stop recruitment for a while. It means to train members to fly missions. It means to encourage and motivate every single pilot in your corp to participate. It is called leadership. Such "corporations of addled fools" are a tight community and I think it is a part of what we enjoy in the game. And once again, by removing a corp goal as a common accomplishment of a community, you remove something from the game.
P.S.: While I value your opinion, I would rather skip the thoughtless judgement of my playstyle.
On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid. |
Theo Sotken
Mother Knows Best Corporation
22
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 12:06:00 -
[1428] - Quote
The biggest concerns that are arising over these changes are caused by CCP creating a dev blog that is totally inadequate to make informed decisions with.
At present I would hope that removing the ability to copy blueprints at stations to POSes does not create a situation where I am forced station jump blueprints or have to setup some remote research solely to entertain pvper's at my expense.
I am also concerned that being wardecced is already a pretty cheap afk way of griefing an industry corp and adds no risk to the wardeccer while causing a lot of disruption and expense. I would like a mechanic that introduces a long consequence for the wardeccers rather than the current pitifully low isk payment. |
Nlex
Domini Canium
31
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 13:05:00 -
[1429] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Nlex wrote:Standings required for anchoring a POS are as much RP and lore item as they are a gameplay mechanic. Removing them would mean that suddenly, Empires let just about anyone plunk a POS at their moons. Why would they do that, especially when CCP's recent plot developments hint at Empires being oh so afraid of capsuleers' rising power? Maybe thats the whole point. Our rising power means we dont need permission of the empire's to anchor a tower. See we got this lore thing sorted! Someone freshly from Caille Uni doesn't have any power, yet, with summer changes, is allowed to put up POSes. Moreover, if Empires indeed feel threatened by large capsuleer alliances in 0.0, giving them free access to moons and planets is completely illogical thing to do. This here is another thing CCP does to make lore side of EVE setting, NPC Empires, irrelevant to PvP gameplay. This should not stand. Trade taxes, refine taxes, standings requirements for anchoring in space, charters are all part of payment for using NPC services, of setting's lore. |
Lisa Dorn
Arton Org.
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 13:56:00 -
[1430] - Quote
Thank you CCP for making Standings useless.
I would agree if you only would make it available for certain Sec Status (like 0.5, 0.6) and higher still require Standings. But making it completly available is a bit over the top in my opinion. I mean you get shot by the faction if you have bad standings but you get nothing when you got good standings? Many ppl just grinded up Standings to Anchor their own pos in highsec.
How about making cloning available for everyone? That would make sense. But eh ccp is taking from those who invested some time to grind up standings just to take them away.
Well done...
|
|
Mar'Dur Taren
The Copernicus Institute
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 13:58:00 -
[1431] - Quote
Quote:Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
I want to vehemently protest against this planned change. It is going to be a detriment to industry.
I run a multi-person Tech 2 business. Its been difficult sorting things so there is a reduced risk of things being stolen or destroyed. I still endure a risk and I think its enough. More risk is unacceptable. The plan to make it impossible to copy BPOs in a POS while they remain in a station causes a very high risk that I will lose BPOs regularly. People will misplace them, steal them or go inactive while in possession of them. Currently, the BPOs are stored in a central location where we can do anything we need them to do. There is no need to search through arrays or cans or anything to find what's needed. A simple search in the inventory window is enough. If I was to allow BPOs to go to the POS I would have to either give my copiers full access to the BPOs or assign every job personally. The first is a huge risk. I would have to trust everyone one of my copier boffins. This would eliminate copying as good introductory role for new boffins. Assigning jobs is a major hassle as it take time from the directors to pack up each task.
If I choose to copy BPOs in a copy station then I will not also be able to manufacture using the originals as the Build and Copy stations are rarely the same place. I would at the least need to collect another set of the BPOs so as to have some on each station. Furthermore I would miss out on the time bonus that copy labs at a POS have making the whole process take longer.
My boffins copy between 7,500 and 10,000 BPCs a month. This new system will add a significant amount to that figure. I will need to copy the Advance Component BPOs and module BPOs in order to make the parts for the Tech 2 builds. What's more, I have to store all those BPCs somewhere and containers are currently limited to 1,000 BPCs at a time. I can't put tens of thousands of BPCs in a corp hangar. The lag when accessing it would be unbearable. Then you are going to have dozens of odd runs BPCs that aren't worth building from since you need many more than the BPC has. I suspect I'd end up destroying a lot of sub 100 runs BPCs. That many copy jobs is going to max out the price on any lab station. I'm looking at paying a huge premium on the copy jobs I have to do. How does that figure compare to running a copying POS? I certainly hope its cheaper as I'm going to be waiting an extra day for each one since I miss out on the 65% time reduction from Advanced Mobile Labs.
Next problem. My last build cycle demanded that I build 12,392 Quantum Microprocessors amongst other things. I used the remote build ability to use a BPO in station and build at the POS for the speed bonus. I used one slot on my alt and the job would take about 5.25 days. I didn't have to interact with it again until it was done. Nice and easy and fairly logical. Lets assume the new system forces me to make BPCs of the Quantum Microprocessor BPO to build the items in the POS. Already I have added the time associated with making 13 copies to the build job [Quantum Microprocessor BPOs have max run of 1,000.] Then I have to put on 10 build jobs for 1,000 runs each. They will take just over 5 hours each. Then I have to come back and put on the last 3 jobs. Like most people I probably wont log in for another 24 hours so approximately 18 hours of my day is wasted time because my array is building nothing. Furthermore, I can only do Quantum Microprocessors for those two days. Currently I can have ten different projects running and know that there is going to be a minimum of wasted time on the job. I have dozens of things to build for a build cycle. I don't need every job split into 10-15 pieces that need to be micromanaged. With the added time for copying the needed BPCs and the wasted time associated with short build jobs you will find that building a GÇ£batchGÇ¥ of goods is going to take considerably longer than it currently does.
If you want to make some significant improvements to industry then you should looks at things like the 1,000 item limit on cans so you can store your BPCs more easily. Setting it up so you can stack BPCs with the same stats would be even better. You actually have a very similar mechanic happening with the R.A.M. already. They are stackable in a virgin state and become unstackable once partially used. Displaying ME, PE and Runs Remaining on the the BP icon would be a major assistance.
Want to help productivity? Change the number of build/research jobs people can put on at one time. There is regularly this time loss as a result of a job finishing long before someone's usual log in time. So instead, say that someone may have max of 11 jobs actively running (11 being the absolute maximum due to skills) and then they may queue up another 11 GÇô 44 jobs that will start when one of the initial eleven are finished. Its kinda a skill queue for build jobs. This would be a major assistance to Tech 2 manufacturing because they only deal with BPCs with short runs on them (10 GÇô 19 at best).
|
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
140
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 14:23:00 -
[1432] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Volar Kang wrote:I see a lot of talk of POS bashing and noobs spamming POS,s come the change but ask yourself this... After the change why even put up a POS in high-sec? You can just move five to eight jumps from Jita and have all the slots you want for less than the monthly cost of a POS.
Personally I have a few systems on my radar and after the change I will most likely take my POS down and avoid the hassles of having it while doing industry in the total safety of a station. This change is actually going to reduce the number of POS,s in high-sec. Probably true for POSes used for research and copying, but maybe not for those used for manufacturing. I know that I'm certainly NOT going to be putting my BPOs in a high-sec POS. I think that it is highly unlikely that CCP can make the reward worth the risk. The mere fact that labs are attached to the POS will ensure an automatic wardec of any small research or industrial corp. Even if you move your BPO's out of the POS before the wardec starts, cancelling ME/PE/copy jobs in progress and the POS downtime due to the wardec will probably erase any benefit. But, for manufacturing, I can use BPCs in a POS. Unless CCP makes it possible for other players to see exactly what is being manufacturing, it will be difficult to determine if it is worth wardec'cing the POS owners. In this case, the reward vs risk ratio may be acceptable. There are orders of magnitude more stations with manufacturing services than research. The run of the mill build pos may go away without substantial bonuses (except T3 science and industry which can't be done in station.) But ME/PE stations will likely be max congested in short order, there are only about 10% of all stations that have those services.
The question is... Will the cost of using maxed stations be higher than the cost of running a POS? Will stations be maxed out 10 jumps away from trade hubs? Will CCP really raise the price of slots so high that it will block entrance to industry for new manufacturers? We don't know yet but you can bet I will be checking slot prices 8 to 12 jumps away from my trade hub. If after the change I can do my stuff cheaper and safer and with less hassle than in a POS, mine will go offline. |
Geo Max
Cursus Publicus Enterprises N E X O
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 18:11:00 -
[1433] - Quote
Nice Dev Blog!.
I was thinking the other day when I manufactured a new ship.... What if you build a ship from the ground up, I mean, you mine the materials, create the parts, then build it and put it on sale on the market.... but the game keep tracking of that unique artesanal ship... and some day you received an e-mail or notificattion that your baby end it's life in a big war between massive corporations or was kill by concord because it's been used by criminals or it's explode in a remote location of unknow space while doing exploration.... something that tell you the story of the ship that you build with such dedication.
Maybe I'am crazy... but it will be a nice touch.
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
14197
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 18:17:00 -
[1434] - Quote
i'll never sell my hookbill. i don't know how you people do it. i built it and it's mine President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1343
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 18:18:00 -
[1435] - Quote
If your t2 business or recruitment is so bad that people steal component bpos you are doing it wrong and deserve to be robbed. GRRR Goons |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
581
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 18:46:00 -
[1436] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: left wing economic thinking is demonstrably empirically superior to right-wing thinking though you are clearly a poor economic thinker of any stripe
Yes. Just go and try to buy a pint of milk in Venezuela or a loaf of bread in North Korea and you'll feel some embarrassment for the comment you've posted here. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1344
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 19:52:00 -
[1437] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Weaselior wrote: left wing economic thinking is demonstrably empirically superior to right-wing thinking though you are clearly a poor economic thinker of any stripe
Yes. Just go and try to buy a pint of milk in Venezuela or a loaf of bread in North Korea and you'll feel some embarrassment for the comment you've posted here.
Talking about embarrassing comments... GRRR Goons |
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
3038
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 20:02:00 -
[1438] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Weaselior wrote: left wing economic thinking is demonstrably empirically superior to right-wing thinking though you are clearly a poor economic thinker of any stripe
Yes. Just go and try to buy a pint of milk in Venezuela or a loaf of bread in North Korea and you'll feel some embarrassment for the comment you've posted here. Talking about embarrassing comments... yeah, everyone knows venezuela has been using the metric system for ninety-nine years. jeez, read a book, victoria |
Flash Phoenix
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 20:13:00 -
[1439] - Quote
Some in game train PvP skills. Then they go and PvP. Perhaps they become a mercenary or join with frinds and claim some space. Their standings (kill boards) allows them to get jobs, charge more, attract other players, have a game style that many in the game do not have because they have not done the time and effort of training and learning how, the many battles and such to reap their rewards from it. Now others in game have done PvE, they have done their time at it and learned the fits and whats needed, and as a reward they can sell items or refine items with more rewards, They can even use their faction standings to set up a POS in high sec to use and enjoy. Even attract others to their corp because thier faction standing allowed them to do so, and thus all in the corp can enjoy the rewards. Many in the game can not do this because they have not been willing to play that game style or even get interested in it. CCP has created a game that has many game styles and allows people to have certain benefits from it that others do not have.
Now we have CCP allowing one to buy their way out of negative standing from PvP or ganking and fly where they wish with ease and no risk from flying in areas where they could not have in the past. No risk of flying in low sec or null and loosing ships as they rat their way back to better standing so as to fly in high sec. We now have grav sites that no longer need scan skills and the loss of the fun to explore and search for them so as to reap their rewards.
We now have ganking or PvP with ease from those who enjoy this play style and yet they have little risk or effort to gain their reward of killing a mining ship, No searching or exploring for a target, and the thrill of finding said target, just warp in and shoot, and if their in high sec they do not even risk being a legal target while they search because they have bought their sec status. It seems we will soon have the reward of setting up and enjoying the potential benefits of a POS in high sec with no risk or enjoyment in the process to do so. No risk of flying high isk fitted ships to quickly gain status vs getting having your ship ganked. No risk of having a hauler or a PvE fit ship jumped in those low sec missons. Sure their are work arounds to every part of the game, sadly. One can buy toons for example or buy a corp. One can buy a titan toon or a POS setting toon. PvP requires practice to be good at it but a toon bought with hi skills sure does ease that learning curve. But one does not learn much about good fits or what fights one might win or loose at it unless you practice at it as you spend time and learn as you move up the skill set. One can buy a corp and set up a POS in hi sec but it does not allow one to learn what it takes to be a successful trader or manufacture as you spend time and investments while moving up the skill set. You make some good investments and some bad as you move up the skill set and learn what factions you need good standings with. A POS is not always a good investments and in EVE you can make bad investements. Its a lot of isk and time to risk to find out. In Eve we have always had risk. The risk of loosing ships, materials, items, investments and we even risk the TIME and amount of FUN we have in game versus the reward we get. We seem to have the path of instant gratification firmly set. Some pick one game style and others pick a different game style. Each has thier rewards and downfalls, each has a process for fun and reward in the game and learning as we go, or at least it use to be that way. So soon we all can set up and reap the potential benifits of a POS in hi sec with no time or risk spent having fun in the game to be able to do so.
What happened to RISK vs GAIN ? |
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 20:55:00 -
[1440] - Quote
after the removal of standings requirements for highhsec pos's, will there be any point to increasing faction standings anymore? will something be added to keep the value of the grind or will it just be removed altogether?
jump clones can be acquired with just corp standings, faction warfare just needs positive standings, refine and tax reductions are corp standings.
there are a lot of players out there that spent a lot of time grinding faction standings to suddenly make their entire work worthless. |
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 21:02:00 -
[1441] - Quote
Volar Kang wrote:Urziel99 wrote:There are orders of magnitude more stations with manufacturing services than research. The run of the mill build pos may go away without substantial bonuses (except T3 science and industry which can't be done in station.) But ME/PE stations will likely be max congested in short order, there are only about 10% of all stations that have those services. The question is... Will the cost of using maxed stations be higher than the cost of running a POS? Will stations be maxed out 10 jumps away from trade hubs? Will CCP really raise the price of slots so high that it will block entrance to industry for new manufacturers? We don't know yet but you can bet I will be checking slot prices 8 to 12 jumps away from my trade hub. If after the change I can do my stuff cheaper and safer and with less hassle than in a POS, mine will go offline.
That depends on CCP, and what kind if POS you use currently. I use a caldari large when I have one up so It costs me about 400 million a month to operate. So unless you put on 1000 jobs a month, or CCP really really borks the price rates I can't see it getting that bad, however you will lose the speed bonuses from the pos mods. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
410
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 21:13:00 -
[1442] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:tax reductions are corp standings.
Not completely -- market tax reductions benefit from both faction and corp. You want both as high as possible. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1020
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 21:27:00 -
[1443] - Quote
Lisa Dorn wrote:Thank you CCP for making Standings useless.
I would agree if you only would make it available for certain Sec Status (like 0.5, 0.6) and higher still require Standings. But making it completly available is a bit over the top in my opinion. I mean you get shot by the faction if you have bad standings but you get nothing when you got good standings? Many ppl just grinded up Standings to Anchor their own pos in highsec.
How about making cloning available for everyone? That would make sense. But eh ccp is taking from those who invested some time to grind up standings just to take them away.
Well done...
Yes, very well done CCP for removing a mechanical requirement to grind. Please extend to other aspects like jump clones.
Grinding is bad, OK? It is bad for new players and it is bad for player retention. The fact that you had to do it back in the mists of time is not a good reason to keep bad gameplay. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 21:42:00 -
[1444] - Quote
Querns wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:tax reductions are corp standings.
Not completely -- market tax reductions benefit from both faction and corp. You want both as high as possible.
also not entirely, it draws from which ever is higher |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Card Shark Industries
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 21:51:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Querns wrote:Or is "gameplay" only supposed to be available to those who meet the stringent requirements of "have rubbed their face against the cheese grater of Eve: Online standings for a sufficient amount of time?" then you must think all sp and LP rec shud be remowed from the game as well,so baying plex you can be a titan pilot from day 1.for exactly howe longe will that be fun.real life wallet over game arcivments.thats surly be the downfall of eve. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
410
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 21:56:00 -
[1446] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:Querns wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:tax reductions are corp standings.
Not completely -- market tax reductions benefit from both faction and corp. You want both as high as possible. also not entirely, it draws from which ever is higher Nope. According to https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Market_guide, the formula is as follows:
BrokerFee % = (1.000 % GÇô 0.050 % +ù BrokerRelationsSkillLevel) / 2 ^ (0.1400 +ù FactionStanding + 0.06000 +ù CorporationStanding)
Faction standing is more than twice as valuable as corporation standing in driving your taxes down. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 21:59:00 -
[1447] - Quote
Querns wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:Querns wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:tax reductions are corp standings.
Not completely -- market tax reductions benefit from both faction and corp. You want both as high as possible. also not entirely, it draws from which ever is higher Nope. According to https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Market_guide, the formula is as follows: BrokerFee % = (1.000 % GÇô 0.050 % +ù BrokerRelationsSkillLevel) / 2 ^ (0.1400 +ù FactionStanding + 0.06000 +ù CorporationStanding) Faction standing is more than twice as valuable as corporation standing in driving your taxes down.
ok, but still not required to reduce taxes to negligible. but its still a nerf to those that worked for the standings. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
410
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 22:01:00 -
[1448] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote: but its still a nerf to those that worked for the standings. You'll have to console yourself with the previous decade of uninterrupted highsec POS hegemony. I feel like you'll get over it. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
582
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 23:07:00 -
[1449] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote: yeah, everyone knows venezuela has been using the metric system for ninety-nine years. jeez, read a book, victoria
I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not sure you do either. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1021
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 23:51:00 -
[1450] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Benny Ohu wrote: yeah, everyone knows venezuela has been using the metric system for ninety-nine years. jeez, read a book, victoria
I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not sure you do either. Yeah, Venezuela was quite an early adopter weren't they? Well over 99 years ago.
I think we're left with Libya and US still using Imperial now. Or has Libya changed too? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
374
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 23:57:00 -
[1451] - Quote
UK is still imperial no matter what the EU say...except for science stuff then it's metric...confusing as hell for us when we were in school :D
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1021
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 00:54:00 -
[1452] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:UK is still imperial no matter what the EU say...except for science stuff then it's metric...confusing as hell for us when we were in school :D
Hehe, I love that 'except for science stuff'. Goodness knows what we'd end up creating by genetic engineering in Imperial! Probably the Amarr.
Metric is inevitable especially now that the SI units are being redefined according to physical constants. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
460
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 02:28:00 -
[1453] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:UK is still imperial no matter what the EU say...except for science stuff then it's metric...confusing as hell for us when we were in school :D
The hell it is.
You been hibernating for 40 years? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3098
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 04:19:00 -
[1454] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:UK is still imperial no matter what the EU say...except for science stuff then it's metric...confusing as hell for us when we were in school :D
Actually, no.
Most things are sold in Metric. They may be similar in size to the imperial measurements, but they're done in metric. So you won't buy a pound of jam. you'll buy 450 grams.
It's pretty much just: Milk, Beer and distance/speed on roads that's still done in Imperial. Everything else is metric.
Which is good, as imperial is a dumb system. The sooner it's entirely gone the better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdomj Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3481
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 04:26:00 -
[1455] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdomj Erm.... drifting way off-topic.
And now, back to the dev blog... |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
441
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 04:44:00 -
[1456] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Benny Ohu wrote: yeah, everyone knows venezuela has been using the metric system for ninety-nine years. jeez, read a book, victoria
I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not sure you do either. Yeah, Venezuela was quite an early adopter weren't they? Well over 99 years ago. I think we're left with Libya and US still using Imperial now. Or has Libya changed too?
Excuse me, we have American Customary Standard as well as Imperial and Metric units of measurement.
because in 'merica why have only one system when you can have three? 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.
|
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
220
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 05:19:00 -
[1457] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:I will probably never own a POS myself but I have to say that removing the standing requirement to anchor a POS in High Security is a very bad idea.
For as long as I've been playing this game, being able to place a POS in High Security is a badge of honor. If a change to the standing requirement is actually needed, (and it's not) then just allow the Corp members modified standing to be used in the Corp standing average. Opening up the rest of High Security to allow POS to be anchored is all fine and dandy but it needs to follow the original standing mechanic for anchoring, ie, same amount of corp standing as the system security level.
What I see happening here is an entire type of player run business being snuffed out of existence. This new change doesn't help the smaller corps and alliances that have worked hard at building up and maintaining Faction standings in order to have a POS in High Sec.
Opening up High Sec systems to anyone with no standing whatsoever to anchor a POS just means more moons for the big power-block Alliances to control.
DMC
Nothing stops me (or power blocs much much larger than me) from seeding every moon within 10j of jita with a large offline tower except my will to live
Nobody CARES about you |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
220
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 05:27:00 -
[1458] - Quote
Theo Sotken wrote:.
I am also concerned that being wardecced is already a pretty cheap afk way of griefing an industry corp and adds no risk to the wardeccer while causing a lot of disruption and expense. I would like a mechanic that introduces a long consequence for the wardeccers rather than the current pitifully low isk payment.
lol
Learn to shoot back, you being terrible is not a reason to change game mechanics |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
220
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 05:51:00 -
[1459] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:in the past three years or so I've seen a trend of the CCP devs moving away from customer focused development and towards a forced predetermined play style. I can't help but think that this has something to do with taking on venture capital.
With each expansion it seem I keep reading dev blogs that say something along the lines of " so we noticed that players are doing XY and Z but we want them to do AB and C so here is our plan to force them to play their game our way"
I guess with regards to this specific situation however I do have to recognize that you have been trying to destroy trade hubs since the game began.
This is an MMO and you seem to be trying to get players to not want to group up near each other. I'm not really sure what part of massive multiplayer you don't understand but this is a game of interactions with other players. It's also an industrial simulation and in the real world industry tends to group up together in tight clusters called cities where you have easy cheap access to everything you need.
You are trying to force players to do more stuff in low and null sec which means more moving **** around which not only means more expensive ships and mods and such but more game time spent manually jumping freighters long distances or moving expensive jump freighters around. I may not have met everyone that plays this game but in all the people that I've played with I have yet to meet one that enjoys jumping around and freighters are the worst and have only been made worse in recent years by new warp mechanics.
This summer industry expansion seem to be shaping up to make ships more expensive while decreasing the potential revenue from PvE activities for players with lower skill points meaning the ones who get more isk per hour from looting and salvaging than speed running. This mean on the whole the average player will more likely than not need to spend more time PvEing to be able to afford to loose ships PvPing
So log your data CCP devs and let me know in a few months if I am right. I'd love to see a dev blog when the winter expansion comes out comparing time spent PvEing and jumping crap around and time spent PvPing now versus then. I'm sure you guys have ways to figure out how much isk the average player can make per hour at a given task and compare that to ship prices and come up with some kind of index that gives a general feel for how many hours need to be spent to earn fully fit frig or BS or what ever.
You are really horrible at industry
I had my underlings build a POS shrine 1j from Jita for maximum laziness, and if that taxes your effort meter, you should probably play a different (genre) of games. Industry is only as hard as you make it, and you are taking pains to make it hard... |
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
3039
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 07:35:00 -
[1460] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Benny Ohu wrote: yeah, everyone knows venezuela has been using the metric system for ninety-nine years. jeez, read a book, victoria
I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not sure you do either. god i hate explaining jokes |
|
Theo Sotken
Mother Knows Best Corporation
26
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 08:26:00 -
[1461] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Theo Sotken wrote:.
I am also concerned that being wardecced is already a pretty cheap afk way of griefing an industry corp and adds no risk to the wardeccer while causing a lot of disruption and expense. I would like a mechanic that introduces a long consequence for the wardeccers rather than the current pitifully low isk payment. lol Learn to shoot back, you being terrible is not a reason to change game mechanics
And yet CCP seems to want to make industrialists more vulnerable and put more stuff at risk rather than tell pvpers be better? and as for your advice 'Learn to shoot back' doesn't help the industry corp at all during the wardec period does it!
|
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 08:42:00 -
[1462] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Theo Sotken wrote:.
I am also concerned that being wardecced is already a pretty cheap afk way of griefing an industry corp and adds no risk to the wardeccer while causing a lot of disruption and expense. I would like a mechanic that introduces a long consequence for the wardeccers rather than the current pitifully low isk payment. lol Learn to shoot back, you being terrible is not a reason to change game mechanics
If you can shoot back 24 / 7 / 365 nice; do you have a family, work, eat and have a life? The rest of us have only an hour or so online as RL kicks in for the rest, CCP DO NOT consider when they make their changes, and that is the EFECTIVE game time players have at any one part of the day. More destructiveness is Possible in 2-3 Hrs by 4 - 6 players than can be countered by the same number of Constructive/productive players. That I believe is the imbalance that Theo is trying to put across. |
Katrinna Voight-Kampf
University of Caille Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 08:49:00 -
[1463] - Quote
Risk vs Reward, finally!!! |
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 09:27:00 -
[1464] - Quote
Katrinna Voight-Kampf wrote:Risk vs Reward in EvE industry, finally!!!
Of course themepark carebears don't like this changes, but what did you expect from them ?
Sigh! more poor quality trolling, now be a good baby troll and go back under your bridge. sorry the rest of you guys out there but this has to be a -9 score. |
Red Bot Huntress
Bot Hunting Extravaganza
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 10:32:00 -
[1465] - Quote
Katrinna Voight-Kampf wrote:Risk vs Reward in EvE industry, finally!!!
Of course themepark carebears don't like this changes, but what did you expect from them ? What Risk vs Reward? You haven't really read the whole devblog, have you. |
Katrinna Voight-Kampf
University of Caille Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 10:59:00 -
[1466] - Quote
D'Kelle wrote:Katrinna Voight-Kampf wrote:Risk vs Reward in EvE industry, finally!!!
Of course themepark carebears don't like this changes, but what did you expect from them ? Sigh! more poor quality trolling, now be a good baby troll and go back under your bridge. sorry the rest of you guys out there but this has to be a -9 score.
Prime exemple of a themepark carebear thought process, everyone that don't agree with them are trolls. |
Katrinna Voight-Kampf
University of Caille Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 11:01:00 -
[1467] - Quote
Red Bot Huntress wrote:Katrinna Voight-Kampf wrote:Risk vs Reward in EvE industry, finally!!!
Of course themepark carebears don't like this changes, but what did you expect from them ? What Risk vs Reward? You haven't really read the whole devblog, have you.
Set of principles:
Any industry feature must have an actual gameplay attached to it in order to exist Any industry feature must be balanced around our risk versus reward philosophy Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5393
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 11:09:00 -
[1468] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Victoria Sin wrote:Soldarius wrote: You can't possibly be that ignorant about import/export costs. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move that many (or any realistic amount) of DCIIs from nulsec to hisec?
I do. It's pointless building them there right now. The local markets are too small for high volume. What's interesting in this discussion, however, is the left wing thinking: This industry is struggling so in order to even the playing field we're going to impose a tax on those that are a success. That's basically what you're suggesting here. I see this all the time in government policies. It's how you wreck industries they were once thriving and impose higher costs on consumers. How's that conservative right-wing unregulated banking sector working for you these days?
Do you mean, totally government backed, saved from natural market laws banks? The ones that should have defaulted yet were not left to?
That's just another distortion, and it's FAR from being "right wing". It's the new age interventionism and distortion, so the harsh market laws that makes bad companies fail does not happen any more so they are enticed to continue and even do worse. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
374
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 12:27:00 -
[1469] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:UK is still imperial no matter what the EU say...except for science stuff then it's metric...confusing as hell for us when we were in school :D
Most things are sold in Metric. They may be similar in size to the imperial measurements, but they're done in metric. So you won't buy a pound of jam. you'll buy 450 grams. It's pretty much just: Milk, Beer and distance/speed on roads that's still done in Imperial. Everything else is metric.
Actually if you get decent jam here it's sold in 454 gram pots...guess what that converts to in imperial :D
We define ourselves physicslly in imperial as in feet and inches, stone, pounds, and ounces. Distance and area are in miles, most here haven't a concept of how far a kilometre is but tell us it is just over half a mile and we know its a 10 minute walk or so. I was born 2 years after decimalization here so grew up using both methods. Someone said this is off topic but it actually shows exactly the same thinking.
Those happy with the old way will want to stay with it, those caught in the change will either adapt or wish things had never changed. Those that start after the change will look at the old way of doing things and think 'But that's nuts!'
just because those who are used to the old ways of things aren't happy doesn't mean that the change isn't required or indeed necessary.
|
Vesago
Amalgamated Steel
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 15:57:00 -
[1470] - Quote
D'Kelle wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:Theo Sotken wrote:.
I am also concerned that being wardecced is already a pretty cheap afk way of griefing an industry corp and adds no risk to the wardeccer while causing a lot of disruption and expense. I would like a mechanic that introduces a long consequence for the wardeccers rather than the current pitifully low isk payment. lol Learn to shoot back, you being terrible is not a reason to change game mechanics If you can shoot back 24 / 7 / 365 nice; do you have a family, work, eat and have a life? The rest of us have only an hour or so online as RL kicks in for the rest, CCP DO NOT consider when they make their changes, and that is the EFECTIVE game time players have at any one part of the day. More destructiveness is Possible in 2-3 Hrs by 4 - 6 players than can be countered by the same number of Constructive/productive players. That I believe is the imbalance that Theo is trying to put across.
This is so true, PvP takes zero commitment in regards to high sec war dec's. They are looking for easy targets. You can run a PvP fleet at your leisure, while maintaining an Industrial effort requires time, and ships that arent capable of defending themselves. A high Sec war dec means my Freighters stay parked. But the PvP corp has nothing but benefit from it. For there to be risk vs. rewards for all parties, There should be a mechanic that makes shooting industrials risky in some way. That will of course... never happen. |
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
179
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 16:46:00 -
[1471] - Quote
Freelancer117 wrote: A) Could you explain please what the philosophy / lore behind this is when no more faction standing requirements are needed ?
It seems reasonable for all those engineers out there, to see their hard work grinding faction standing to pick the fruits of that. This way it just copies losec, please consider faction standing to be involved when it concerns Starbase Charters requirements for hisec.
B) And the obvious question has to be asked ofc, will the industry changes be tied into CREST ?
B ) was answered by CCP Nullarbor (source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474947#post4474947);
"We will at the very least be updating the static export with new blueprint data, and I'll try and get this out to devs before the release."
A) is answered by CSM 8 vice-chairman Ripard Teg ;
"And here's the simple fact of the matter: guys, they do understand this. Hell, they haven't said so -- if they had, it would be NDA -- but I suspect that's the goal of the exercise. CCP Greyscale (source: http://jestertrek.blogspot.nl/2014/04/traitor.html) in particular has for years been the champion of the philosophy that doing some activities in some areas of space should completely suck and you would be dumb to do those activities there. In the past, the goal has been to make living full-time in null-sec directly correlate with higher player income than living in high-sec. I can easily see industry warping off in that direction come summer.
Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
3044
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 17:20:00 -
[1472] - Quote
Vesago wrote:This is so true, PvP takes zero commitment in regards to high sec war dec's. They are looking for easy targets. You can run a PvP fleet at your leisure, while maintaining an Industrial effort requires time, and ships that arent capable of defending themselves. A high Sec war dec means my Freighters stay parked. But the PvP corp has nothing but benefit from it. For there to be risk vs. rewards for all parties, There should be a mechanic that makes shooting industrials risky in some way. That will of course... never happen. the entire and only advantage gained from declaring a war (as opposed to receiving) is choosing a target, an advantage which is paid for
all other advantage is provided by players' isk, experience and effort. equally for aggressor and defender |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
441
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 17:43:00 -
[1473] - Quote
Freelancer117 wrote:Freelancer117 wrote: A) Could you explain please what the philosophy / lore behind this is when no more faction standing requirements are needed ?
It seems reasonable for all those engineers out there, to see their hard work grinding faction standing to pick the fruits of that. This way it just copies losec, please consider faction standing to be involved when it concerns Starbase Charters requirements for hisec.
B) And the obvious question has to be asked ofc, will the industry changes be tied into CREST ?
B ) was answered by CCP Nullarbor (source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474947#post4474947); "We will at the very least be updating the static export with new blueprint data, and I'll try and get this out to devs before the release."A) is answered by CSM 8 vice-chairman Ripard Teg ; "And here's the simple fact of the matter: guys, they do understand this. Hell, they haven't said so -- if they had, it would be NDA -- but I suspect that's the goal of the exercise. CCP Greyscale (source: http://jestertrek.blogspot.nl/2014/04/traitor.html) in particular has for years been the champion of the philosophy that doing some activities in some areas of space should completely suck and you would be dumb to do those activities there. In the past, the goal has been to make living full-time in null-sec directly correlate with higher player income than living in high-sec. I can easily see industry warping off in that direction come summer.
this is a misquote from jester treks blog, grayscale is implied to have this philosophy and is not quoted, nor is that last sentence attributed to him (grayscale) the whole quote there is jesters thoughts on ccps philosophy and not a quote from grayscale at all.
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.
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
25385
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 17:47:00 -
[1474] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:I will probably never own a POS myself but I have to say that removing the standing requirement to anchor a POS in High Security is a very bad idea.
For as long as I've been playing this game, being able to place a POS in High Security is a badge of honor. If a change to the standing requirement is actually needed, (and it's not) then just allow the Corp members modified standing to be used in the Corp standing average. Opening up the rest of High Security to allow POS to be anchored is all fine and dandy but it needs to follow the original standing mechanic for anchoring, ie, same amount of corp standing as the system security level.
What I see happening here is an entire type of player run business being snuffed out of existence. This new change doesn't help the smaller corps and alliances that have worked hard at building up and maintaining Faction standings in order to have a POS in High Sec.
Opening up High Sec systems to anyone with no standing whatsoever to anchor a POS just means more moons for the big power-block Alliances to control.
DMC
Nothing stops me (or power blocs much much larger than me) from seeding every moon within 10j of jita with a large offline tower except my will to live Nobody CARES about you If that were true, then why hasn't it already been done ?
A better question to ask is why do you always go out of your way to troll post ?
Last and most importantly, your opinion is nothing more than typical asshattery anyway.
DMC Faction Standing Repair Plan | California Eve Players | (Proposal) Bring Back 'The Endless Battle' Missions |
Caval Marten
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 18:18:00 -
[1475] - Quote
Not sure if it's been mentioned before but lowsec can be much more dangerous than null. I hope CCP takes this into account when balancing out the benefits of industry in the various security spaces. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
221
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 18:28:00 -
[1476] - Quote
Theo Sotken wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:Theo Sotken wrote:.
I am also concerned that being wardecced is already a pretty cheap afk way of griefing an industry corp and adds no risk to the wardeccer while causing a lot of disruption and expense. I would like a mechanic that introduces a long consequence for the wardeccers rather than the current pitifully low isk payment. lol Learn to shoot back, you being terrible is not a reason to change game mechanics And yet CCP seems to want to make industrialists more vulnerable and put more stuff at risk rather than tell pvpers be better? and as for your advice 'Learn to shoot back' doesn't help the industry corp at all during the wardec period does it!
Having to destroy an online POS isn't risky enough?? Throw some guns on and you can easily outstrip the expected value for 99% of attackers. Your characters can easily drop/swap corps at any time to avoid wardecs, or easily fight back against the "ganker menace", but you choose not to and suffer as a consequence. This is not CCP's problem, it is yours. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
221
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 18:29:00 -
[1477] - Quote
D'Kelle wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:Theo Sotken wrote:.
I am also concerned that being wardecced is already a pretty cheap afk way of griefing an industry corp and adds no risk to the wardeccer while causing a lot of disruption and expense. I would like a mechanic that introduces a long consequence for the wardeccers rather than the current pitifully low isk payment. lol Learn to shoot back, you being terrible is not a reason to change game mechanics If you can shoot back 24 / 7 / 365 nice; do you have a family, work, eat and have a life? The rest of us have only an hour or so online as RL kicks in for the rest, CCP DO NOT consider when they make their changes, and that is the EFECTIVE game time players have at any one part of the day. More destructiveness is Possible in 2-3 Hrs by 4 - 6 players than can be countered by the same number of Constructive/productive players. That I believe is the imbalance that Theo is trying to put across.
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/POS_Warfare#Reinforced_Mode
Wow you get to PICK AND CHOOSE the time your ultimate defense will take place... and the enemy still has to grind through millions of EHP + defenses
Soooo much risk |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
221
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 18:34:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Vesago wrote: This is so true, PvP takes zero commitment in regards to high sec war dec's. They are looking for easy targets. You can run a PvP fleet at your leisure, while maintaining an Industrial effort requires time, and ships that arent capable of defending themselves. A high Sec war dec means my Freighters stay parked. But the PvP corp has nothing but benefit from it. For there to be risk vs. rewards for all parties, There should be a mechanic that makes shooting industrials risky in some way. That will of course... never happen.
It costs >=50m to dec
That is risk
You can leave corp
That is risk
You can fight back
THAT IS RISK
If you bend over and let someone frag you, you can't then go and ***** that they did so - You are literally inviting wardecs. Saying "I will never fight back ever" and I will gladly come to kill you in an ibis, because it is entirely your own fault that you choose to lose in a PVP game. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
221
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 18:37:00 -
[1479] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:I will probably never own a POS myself but I have to say that removing the standing requirement to anchor a POS in High Security is a very bad idea.
For as long as I've been playing this game, being able to place a POS in High Security is a badge of honor. If a change to the standing requirement is actually needed, (and it's not) then just allow the Corp members modified standing to be used in the Corp standing average. Opening up the rest of High Security to allow POS to be anchored is all fine and dandy but it needs to follow the original standing mechanic for anchoring, ie, same amount of corp standing as the system security level.
What I see happening here is an entire type of player run business being snuffed out of existence. This new change doesn't help the smaller corps and alliances that have worked hard at building up and maintaining Faction standings in order to have a POS in High Sec.
Opening up High Sec systems to anyone with no standing whatsoever to anchor a POS just means more moons for the big power-block Alliances to control.
DMC
Nothing stops me (or power blocs much much larger than me) from seeding every moon within 10j of jita with a large offline tower except my will to live Nobody CARES about you If that were true, then why hasn't it already been done ? A better question to ask is why do you always go out of your way to troll post ? Last and most importantly, your opinion is nothing more than typical asshattery anyway. DMC
See: Will to live
I have better things to do with my time than to go online 600+ towers, though it is entirely feasible to do so
I'd like to ask why you go out of your way to ignore the point entirely, how's that null-sec cartel going, dinsdale?
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
25385
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 19:14:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:Nothing stops me (or power blocs much much larger than me) from seeding every moon within 10j of jita with a large offline tower except my will to live
Nobody CARES about you If that were true, then why hasn't it already been done ? A better question to ask is why do you always go out of your way to troll post ? Last and most importantly, your opinion is nothing more than typical asshattery anyway. DMC See: Will to live I have better things to do with my time than to go online 600+ towers, though it is entirely feasible to do so I'd like to ask why you go out of your way to ignore the point entirely, how's that null-sec cartel going, dinsdale?
Sorry Charley, you're like way out there in left field barking up the wrong tree.
DMC
Faction Standing Repair Plan | California Eve Players | (Proposal) Bring Back 'The Endless Battle' Missions |
|
Vesago
Amalgamated Steel
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 19:23:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Vesago wrote: This is so true, PvP takes zero commitment in regards to high sec war dec's. They are looking for easy targets. You can run a PvP fleet at your leisure, while maintaining an Industrial effort requires time, and ships that arent capable of defending themselves. A high Sec war dec means my Freighters stay parked. But the PvP corp has nothing but benefit from it. For there to be risk vs. rewards for all parties, There should be a mechanic that makes shooting industrials risky in some way. That will of course... never happen.
It costs >=50m to dec That is risk You can leave corp That is risk You can fight back THAT IS RISK If you bend over and let someone frag you, you can't then go and ***** that they did so - You are literally inviting wardecs. Saying "I will never fight back ever" and I will gladly come to kill you in an ibis, because it is entirely your own fault that you choose to lose in a PVP game.
It costs you 50 million to wardec me....
It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...
yep its fair.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3484
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 19:38:00 -
[1482] - Quote
Vesago wrote:It costs you 50 million to wardec me....
It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...
yep its fair. Why stop mining? I don't. I just stay aware when mining, and change my tactics a little, like using Retrievers instead of Hulks and Orca. |
Vesago
Amalgamated Steel
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 20:18:00 -
[1483] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Vesago wrote:It costs you 50 million to wardec me....
It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...
yep its fair. Why stop mining? I don't. I just stay aware when mining, and change my tactics a little, like using Retrievers instead of Hulks and Orca.
We are diverging from the point of the discussion. I will deal with war decs, and probably never put up another high sec POS again. I will fly my procurers because they have a descent tank and the 3 man destroyer gank squad might go after someone in a hulk instead.
The small changes arent the big issue, its when all of it starts adding together. If it continues to become a situation where CCP wants me to be everyones favorite target then maybe ill do what they want me to do...
Ill be like everyone else and go gank people.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
392
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 20:20:00 -
[1484] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Vesago wrote:It costs you 50 million to wardec me....
It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...
yep its fair. Why stop mining? I don't. I just stay aware when mining, and change my tactics a little, like using Retrievers instead of Hulks and Orca. Um, if you are under a wardec, they will pop your Retriever as soon as you undock from the station. No one with a brain does high-sec PVE activity while under a wardec. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3485
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 20:23:00 -
[1485] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Vesago wrote:It costs you 50 million to wardec me....
It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...
yep its fair. Why stop mining? I don't. I just stay aware when mining, and change my tactics a little, like using Retrievers instead of Hulks and Orca. Um, if you are under a wardec, they will pop your Retriever as soon as you undock from the station. No one with a brain does high-sec PVE activity while under a wardec. Why are you still mining in the same system?
Why are you not checking local?
Why are you not scouting?
I'm the one without a brain? |
ChYph3r
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 20:35:00 -
[1486] - Quote
In post https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4478787#post4478787 how can a ISD edit a DEV's post......clearly ISD has too much power!
Want to find all the podcasts around EVE Online visit http://evepodcasts.com @chyph3r-á on Twitter
|
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1861
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 20:38:00 -
[1487] - Quote
I agree with this...
IB4 Delete for discussing moderation by *Insert ISD here* New player experience, more highsec PvE missions, casual play, balance, counters to AFK cloaking, expanding the NEX store, and Power Projection.
Azami Nevinyrall for CSM9! |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
113
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 21:36:00 -
[1488] - Quote
Back from my weekend in the real world.
Still would like an explanation on why the change to Standings requirement.
_____________________________________________________________________
Had some ideas when thinking about this.
One, I think standing requirements should be added to more mechanics in High-sec space.
POCO use, etc.
Two, I like the idea of opening up 0.9 and 1.0 systems but think they should still be gated with standings.
Three, if one wanted to make standings more meaningful choice I would say you should implement an element of decay into them for Standings with NPC's. Such as the loss of one average level 4 storyline missions worth of standings every week or faster depending on desired balance.
This would further help keep highsec for highsec players as it would help weed out the ability of null-sec one man alt corps from taking the space. Since it could be difficult for them at time to be active with their mains during a war in null-sec and maintain their standing for their alt industry POS in the best highsec location. |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 23:01:00 -
[1489] - Quote
So after 45 pages of reading and 10 years in Industry I have mixed feelings on this patch.
Standing changes I am happy for, always thought it was a stupid grind
Open Slots everywhere is a major change, but really what it will do is cause office charges to raise more than anything. I guess the only question is: Does the congestion charge have a max? Or does it just keep going?
The rest of the stuff is major "hurry up and wait". Need more DEVBLOGS. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1021
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 23:18:00 -
[1490] - Quote
Caval Marten wrote:Not sure if it's been mentioned before but lowsec can be much more dangerous than null. I hope CCP takes this into account when balancing out the benefits of industry in the various security spaces. This bears repeating. I am guessing that lowsec rates will sit between highsec and nullsec. I am not sure that this is an accurate reflection of risk vs reward.
Unfortunately, there seems to be very little thought given to lowsec by either CCP or the CSM, although this will hopefully change in CSM9. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 23:37:00 -
[1491] - Quote
LOWSEC will always be a non used area of EVE compared ti High/Null. RvR is not there for most people that like to keep their stuff in one piece and the others who want to blow up other players (PvP) just join one of the big 3 and they have what they want. Leaves noobs and pirates...and bored Null bears.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
392
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 23:41:00 -
[1492] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Vesago wrote:It costs you 50 million to wardec me....
It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...
yep its fair. Why stop mining? I don't. I just stay aware when mining, and change my tactics a little, like using Retrievers instead of Hulks and Orca. Um, if you are under a wardec, they will pop your Retriever as soon as you undock from the station. No one with a brain does high-sec PVE activity while under a wardec. Why are you still mining in the same system? Why are you not checking local? Why are you not scouting? I'm the one without a brain? What difference does it make what system you are mining in? If you move, I can find you easily enough via a locator agent.
How does checking local help you? I can send an alt in to scout, and mark your location. Then, it is a matter of seconds to jump into the system and pop you, before you have a chance to react.
Scouting where? Are you going to multi-box scouts in every surrounding system? To defend your lousy Retriever? lol...
And, yes, you either haven't really been mining during a wardec, or you don't have a brain. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
412
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 00:49:00 -
[1493] - Quote
With all the doom and gloom surrounding mining during a wardec, it makes you wonder how any mining occurs in nullsec, where you are not only effectively under a wardec from everyone at the same time, but also vulnerable to hotdrops. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 01:00:00 -
[1494] - Quote
Querns wrote:With all the doom and gloom surrounding mining during a wardec, it makes you wonder how any mining occurs in nullsec, where you are not only effectively under a wardec from everyone at the same time, but also vulnerable to hotdrops.
Far less of it happens than used to happen. CCP decided to give the ganker free kills when we lost hidden grav sites (Because god forbid the ganker have to employ :effort: to find targets). Then, when they still couldn't kill off nullsec mining they gave them instant align, fast warping, interdiction nullified, tacklers. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 01:12:00 -
[1495] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Querns wrote:With all the doom and gloom surrounding mining during a wardec, it makes you wonder how any mining occurs in nullsec, where you are not only effectively under a wardec from everyone at the same time, but also vulnerable to hotdrops. Far less of it happens than used to happen. CCP decided to give the ganker free kills when we lost hidden grav sites (Because god forbid the ganker have to employ :effort: to find targets). Then, when they still couldn't kill off nullsec mining they gave them instant align, fast warping, interdiction nullified, tacklers.
who the hell wants to mine null anyway all the rock out there sells for far less than its base price. logi to get it to a decent market is an expensive pita, and I can mine far more than I could ever sell or use of those high end rocks. it was not till I started mining for minerals below isogen in highsec that I was actually able to sell everything I mined in a decent time frame. for a miner null will never have enough reward for the risk. or be viable game play, when afk cloaky can just walk away from their computer and lock you in station/pos for the few hours you may be online every night. |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 01:28:00 -
[1496] - Quote
Plenty of backwater systems with little to no traffic that could be mined all day and night by a few people. And with local still being completely on in regular space, and 14 layers of alliance defenses (roams, intel, etc.) you can mine your brains out. But, valid point m8, unless you need the minerals to build something, easier to shoot stuff and refine. |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 01:31:00 -
[1497] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Querns wrote:With all the doom and gloom surrounding mining during a wardec, it makes you wonder how any mining occurs in nullsec, where you are not only effectively under a wardec from everyone at the same time, but also vulnerable to hotdrops. Far less of it happens than used to happen. CCP decided to give the ganker free kills when we lost hidden grav sites (Because god forbid the ganker have to employ :effort: to find targets). Then, when they still couldn't kill off nullsec mining they gave them instant align, fast warping, interdiction nullified, tacklers. who the hell wants to mine null anyway all the rock out there sells for far less than its base price. logi to get it to a decent market is an expensive pita, and I can mine far more than I could ever sell or use of those high end rocks. it was not till I started mining for minerals below isogen in highsec that I was actually able to sell everything I mined in a decent time frame. for a miner null will never have enough reward for the risk. or be viable game play, when afk cloaky can just walk away from their computer and lock you in station/pos for the few hours you may be online every night.
It's slower to move large amounts of Zydrine and Megacyte, and Morphite can take great deal of time to move given it's limited use, but the trick is to not just mine ABCDM. Mining the other materials gives the few who do industry in nullsec the base minerals they need, and makes the sites respawn faster. Rorqual compression also makes the bulk of ores a non-issue as well as giving some pretty awesome command bonuses and being a cheap transport platform. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1021
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 01:36:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:LOWSEC will always be a non used area of EVE compared ti High/Null. RvR is not there for most people that like to keep their stuff in one piece and the others who want to blow up other players (PvP) just join one of the big 3 and they have what they want. Leaves noobs and pirates...and bored Null bears.
And highsec will ALWAYS have the best industry? And null will ALWAYS have really bad sov mechanics?
Risk vs reward should play out properly in lowsec as well. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 01:40:00 -
[1499] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Vigilant wrote:LOWSEC will always be a non used area of EVE compared ti High/Null. RvR is not there for most people that like to keep their stuff in one piece and the others who want to blow up other players (PvP) just join one of the big 3 and they have what they want. Leaves noobs and pirates...and bored Null bears.
And highsec will ALWAYS have the best industry? And null will ALWAYS have really bad sov mechanics? Risk vs reward should play out properly in lowsec as well.
I agree 100 percent, but 10 years of history does not give me much hope... |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
412
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 01:51:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:Plenty of backwater systems with little to no traffic that could be mined all day and night by a few people. And with local still being completely on in regular space, and 14 layers of alliance defenses (roams, intel, etc.) you can mine your brains out. But, valid point m8, unless you need the minerals to build something, easier to shoot stuff and refine. Ah, yes, thank you.
What I've never understood about this whole "nullsec is safe" thing is that, sure, the tools exist to mitigate risk in nullsec. However, they're not specific to nullsec -- anyone in any area of space (with a non-delayed local) can use the same tools. Why do highsec dwellers refuse to use the same tools that nullsec has? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 02:03:00 -
[1501] - Quote
Querns wrote:Vigilant wrote:Plenty of backwater systems with little to no traffic that could be mined all day and night by a few people. And with local still being completely on in regular space, and 14 layers of alliance defenses (roams, intel, etc.) you can mine your brains out. But, valid point m8, unless you need the minerals to build something, easier to shoot stuff and refine. Ah, yes, thank you. What I've never understood about this whole "nullsec is safe" thing is that, sure, the tools exist to mitigate risk in nullsec. However, they're not specific to nullsec -- anyone in any area of space (with a non-delayed local) can use the same tools. Why do highsec dwellers refuse to use the same tools that nullsec has?
F'ing lazy for the most part
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 02:05:00 -
[1502] - Quote
Querns wrote:Vigilant wrote:Plenty of backwater systems with little to no traffic that could be mined all day and night by a few people. And with local still being completely on in regular space, and 14 layers of alliance defenses (roams, intel, etc.) you can mine your brains out. But, valid point m8, unless you need the minerals to build something, easier to shoot stuff and refine. Ah, yes, thank you. What I've never understood about this whole "nullsec is safe" thing is that, sure, the tools exist to mitigate risk in nullsec. However, they're not specific to nullsec -- anyone in any area of space (with a non-delayed local) can use the same tools. Why do highsec dwellers refuse to use the same tools that nullsec has?
To be fair Querns, there are a lot of neuts in highsec to sift through, whereas if they show up in Deklein as a non-blue, it's a safe bet they aren't there for the conversation about the weather.. |
DooDoo Gum
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 02:10:00 -
[1503] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:EDIT: There is also a nice search / filter interface, you will get some time on SiSi to give us feedback on how this works before we go live too.
Will CCP actually listen to peoples experience on SISI and not only 'consider', but also make changes regarding the problems people are having, or will this industry shakedown turn into another 'we know whats best for you' style of arrogant bandage solution we are often subjected to ? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 03:00:00 -
[1504] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Querns wrote:Vigilant wrote:Plenty of backwater systems with little to no traffic that could be mined all day and night by a few people. And with local still being completely on in regular space, and 14 layers of alliance defenses (roams, intel, etc.) you can mine your brains out. But, valid point m8, unless you need the minerals to build something, easier to shoot stuff and refine. Ah, yes, thank you. What I've never understood about this whole "nullsec is safe" thing is that, sure, the tools exist to mitigate risk in nullsec. However, they're not specific to nullsec -- anyone in any area of space (with a non-delayed local) can use the same tools. Why do highsec dwellers refuse to use the same tools that nullsec has? To be fair Querns, there are a lot of neuts in highsec to sift through, whereas if they show up in Deklein as a non-blue, it's a safe bet they aren't there for the conversation about the weather.. They're only blue because we've spent years engaging with the community and finding out who is "trustworthy" and who is not. I guess it might be too much to ask for disenfranchised, antisocial highsec dwellers to actually have to engage with the community. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 05:18:00 -
[1505] - Quote
Querns wrote: ...I guess it might be too much to ask for disenfranchised, antisocial highsec dwellers to actually have to engage with the community.
its this very attitude that is one of the big reasons I live in high sec rather than sov. its rampant and its gross. I'd rather play with myself. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5395
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 05:28:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Querns wrote:With all the doom and gloom surrounding mining during a wardec, it makes you wonder how any mining occurs in nullsec, where you are not only effectively under a wardec from everyone at the same time, but also vulnerable to hotdrops.
I have been in a corp with at least 5-6 wardecs up at any given time.
We mined in deep low sec, not a single hi sec "PvPer" had the guts to come there and try shoot an Hulk. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5395
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 05:29:00 -
[1507] - Quote
Vesago wrote: It costs you 50 million to wardec me....
It costs me a billion plus a week if i stop mining...
yep its fair.
Because we all know, EvE is marketed as THE fair game! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5395
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 05:32:00 -
[1508] - Quote
Querns wrote:With all the doom and gloom surrounding mining during a wardec, it makes you wonder how any mining occurs in nullsec, where you are not only effectively under a wardec from everyone at the same time, but also vulnerable to hotdrops.
Ah, I (I am talking of my alts here) have also been in an industry sov null sec renter for 6 months. Despite the lack of defenses we have seen all of *1* hostile squad of 5 in the whole time. That's null sec HIGH RISK for you!
On the contrary, during Hulkageddons there were up to 70+ ship kills in "my" hi sec system every single day. And about 8 during non Hulkageddon times. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5395
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 05:44:00 -
[1509] - Quote
Querns wrote:Vigilant wrote:Plenty of backwater systems with little to no traffic that could be mined all day and night by a few people. And with local still being completely on in regular space, and 14 layers of alliance defenses (roams, intel, etc.) you can mine your brains out. But, valid point m8, unless you need the minerals to build something, easier to shoot stuff and refine. Ah, yes, thank you. What I've never understood about this whole "nullsec is safe" thing is that, sure, the tools exist to mitigate risk in nullsec. However, they're not specific to nullsec -- anyone in any area of space (with a non-delayed local) can use the same tools. Why do highsec dwellers refuse to use the same tools that nullsec has?
In null sec it's visually EASY to spot hostiles: the second you see *1* neut pop in local you know you have some seconds to warp to POS. Also, you can shoot and THEN ask.
In hi sec you have 60-70 other neuts in system all the time (nor you can switch system if you do ice) and all you can do is to add to contact those you see ganking other people around you. Furthermore if you see neuts warping in, you can't "shoot and then ask" as you just get concorded.
That is, the tools are not exactly the same.
Basically what keeps anyone bothering with hi sec is: a sense of (false) safety due mostly to the buffed mining ships EHP and the lack of the most boring mechanic (after mining itself): logistics. In hi sec you are more or less assured you can log in 30 minutes, mine (for those masochistic enough to do that), refine and move the stuff around. In low sec it's an excruciting pain involving scouts, escorts and all sort of stuff that basically makes you dependant on other guys to escort & protect. Now, the latter is actually awesome for those who like me were logistics officers in a low/null based PvP corp because we always had up to 50 battleships and assorted smaller ships escorting our convoys in ANY sec (some times even in hi sec).
On the contrary, it's a damn nightmare to anyone in a smaller corp, as unlike us those corps can't cover 24/7 gameplay so people have to play only when the others play and that gets ugly quick and then people start quitting and good bye corp. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
50
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 05:49:00 -
[1510] - Quote
Changing a queue system for production to a cost system is a very very bad idea.
Granted, the queue system sucks, but a cost system will lead to people having to haul over the place to get some profit. So basically they now have to haul which is basically waiting AT the keyboard instead of waiting AWAY from the keyboard under the queue system.
This is another example of an ill thought through change that causes more boredom, like we had so many lately.
I think the right way to do it is give the player the option to either join the queue OR pay more for a rush job. That way I think you get the best of both worlds. |
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 06:54:00 -
[1511] - Quote
Querns wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Querns wrote:Vigilant wrote:Plenty of backwater systems with little to no traffic that could be mined all day and night by a few people. And with local still being completely on in regular space, and 14 layers of alliance defenses (roams, intel, etc.) you can mine your brains out. But, valid point m8, unless you need the minerals to build something, easier to shoot stuff and refine. Ah, yes, thank you. What I've never understood about this whole "nullsec is safe" thing is that, sure, the tools exist to mitigate risk in nullsec. However, they're not specific to nullsec -- anyone in any area of space (with a non-delayed local) can use the same tools. Why do highsec dwellers refuse to use the same tools that nullsec has? To be fair Querns, there are a lot of neuts in highsec to sift through, whereas if they show up in Deklein as a non-blue, it's a safe bet they aren't there for the conversation about the weather.. They're only blue because we've spent years engaging with the community and finding out who is "trustworthy" and who is not. I guess it might be too much to ask for disenfranchised, antisocial highsec dwellers to actually have to engage with the community.
To sort through that many organizations in one region of secured space would make the CFC's bluelist look downright quaint for it's lack of size. I can see the tired meme's now. Highsec: The Blue Doughnut's Hole. |
dark lollipop
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 08:16:00 -
[1512] - Quote
Can you please make it so manufacturing/copying from T2 BPO can only be done from a POS?
Looks like the right time to start "removing" those from the game by letting them get blown up in POS. T2 BPO shouldnt be in game anymore, we have invention now. |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Card Shark Industries
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 09:37:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Querns wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote: but its still a nerf to those that worked for the standings. You'll have to console yourself with the previous decade of uninterrupted highsec POS hegemony. I feel like you'll get over it. I have worked on standings to set up pos in 0.6 system bougth pos but wont bother seting it up with the new summer update to com.getting standings have not been the mayor problem the problem have been that POs have been linked to corp standings and not just player standings,and the wariabel tax on production slots give ccp a grate neew tool to nerf hi sec in comming updates,no won rely belivs that this update is just a nother nerf to indi pilots in hi sec lol look on what they been doing the last 3 major updats they nerfing hi to get pepol to low and 0 sec but it wont work when the risk factor for the miner is more than 1000% in dissadvantage for the miner contra the ganker,this game have newer been about risk vs reward only about giving pew pew pilots more to blow up |
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
79
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 11:17:00 -
[1514] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Theo Sotken wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:Theo Sotken wrote:.
I am also concerned that being wardecced is already a pretty cheap afk way of griefing an industry corp and adds no risk to the wardeccer while causing a lot of disruption and expense. I would like a mechanic that introduces a long consequence for the wardeccers rather than the current pitifully low isk payment. lol Learn to shoot back, you being terrible is not a reason to change game mechanics And yet CCP seems to want to make industrialists more vulnerable and put more stuff at risk rather than tell pvpers be better? and as for your advice 'Learn to shoot back' doesn't help the industry corp at all during the wardec period does it! Having to destroy an online POS isn't risky enough?? Throw some guns on and you can easily outstrip the expected value for 99% of attackers. Your characters can easily drop/swap corps at any time to avoid wardecs, or easily fight back against the "ganker menace", but you choose not to and suffer as a consequence. This is not CCP's problem, it is yours.
As far as dropping /Swapping corps are concerned that particular ploy has been blocked now by CCP I believe and as to POS gunnery you have to be online your self when the attack hits your POS. Weapons online or not If the attack hits and its one or two days before it comes out of reinforced mode you or your Corp mates may very well be at work again, (due to time zones and RL availability), when it needs to be `shield reped` and or the weapons replaced or repaired you cannot choose the time when a POS comes out of reinforced mode unlike a POCO's nor can you carry out any effective repairs maintenance while in reinforced, POS owners are in a NO WIN situation simply because CCP again have failed to bring POS's into line with all other updates and gameplay releases to help keep them in balance. If they effectively and efficiently addressed POS flaws there would be far less controversy to this whole situation. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
375
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 11:18:00 -
[1515] - Quote
Just a thought but *why* does everything have to be better in nullsec?
Industry should always benefit from stability rather than chaos thus hisec is the natural choice. This also introduces more people moving stuff from hisec to losec and vice versa. If these changes make things so null is better than everywhere for everything then this ends up forcing everyone to move to null. However there is no way in hell a new player can hope to make a difference in null. They simply have to join a nullsec corp and follow their rules. No individual choice anymore.
I really hope this isn't aimed at nerfing hisec and forcing people to null as this will homogenize the player base and kill the game for the casual player, hence killing the game in its entirety. There have to be areas for all play styles, and those areas have to have some benefit*for* those playstyles. hisec should remain the industry powerhouse to promote players to move goods between the security sectors. Otherwise why would anyone ever need to move otherwise? For combat? that'd just become dull...move blob A to engage blob B and change errrrmmmm well nothing overall...
lo/null should remain with mostly better resources, but industry should benefit from hisec stability, this makes for greater player movement, this more player interaction. Forcing all players to need to play in one are will just make the game dull and lead to those without enough time to dedicate to constant warfare, or without the inclination to be part of a large faceless group no longer bothering with the game. |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 11:54:00 -
[1516] - Quote
Seems CCP is making great efforts to murder there baby with death designed by a thousand cuts , PVP all the way guys, if it moves shoot it.
Want more space, we will give you more space, odd they never noticed that the vast majority of 0.0 is unused currently, and of course if you do choose to go there to mine, we have an answer for that as well, it's called PvP...Heavily armed Player verses utterly unarmed Player but if your alert and have intel, we have the answer to that to, The good old hot dropping cloaked camper, that will put a stop to your game for the day, maybe you could try industry instead, but hang on a minute, we cannot have players actually doing anything constructive that will attract them in this game can we, enter stage right the dancing Nerf monsters singing the Spam song, forget that idea, Get out of here player, your not wanted in 0.0, begone back to Empire were you belong, Not much point of logging in at all except to change skills, Leave the great expanse of 0.0 to those huge Alliances and there roaming gangs of gankers but with not much mining going on and ratting getting nerfed as well, not much fun for them really, No one there you see, there all turtled up around there brand new ESS, That's ok, we can steal there ISK and kill the ESS and put a Cloaked Black Ops camper in system, PvP at it's very best, no Players, no chance of kills, win win win for you.
If you read that lot you might think I was bitter about all this but would you be surprised to learn that I am in no way bitter about it, I actually find it hilarious that CCP would indeed try to kill off EVE in this manner rather than just pulling the plug on it, instead allowing it's workforce to systematically destroy EVE simply because they failed to understand the player base and realise that it is not only the EVE economy that works just like real life.
There is a point when a person recognises the facts, if I do that then this will happen and everything I have done so far will be wasted and in the absence of incentive people do nothing, specifically they do not do what you predict they will do when you design changes in this game.
The small item known as incentive brings with it the thought that maybe CCP should consider there strategy with a little more thought, accept there has to be a reason to change something and when you do you should really take care to fully understand what will happen when you do, if it adds to or maintains the incentive factor for a player then that's ok, but if it detracts from that the results will cascade though EVE, and you will not get what you predicted, butterfly effect applies.
Look back at Plexing, you changed that, ostensibly to make it better in your view, result was that many players just stopped doing it at all, no incentive you see, you added new sites, along with that childish Pac Man game and Ghost sites, result even less players wanted to do it, good earner for those few that mastered it, majority just could not see the point in it and will not engage, it is not all about risk verses reward in the end, there has to be a good helping of incentive, without that your time has been wasted and our's as well, similar with mining you changed that again in your view to make it better, result less people do it, wonder how many Roquals are currently sitting in 0.0 stations unused.
Now you have turned you attention to Industry, but I would take care, from what I have read so far I can reliably predict you will not get the result you are planning for. |
Tara Tyrael
AN Trade
161
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 11:57:00 -
[1517] - Quote
when are the numbers for pos changes coming out, come on CCP
also, anybody taking bets on new indy screen not fitting on smaller screens :D
************************************************ |
Davethethird
Kayama Technology
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 13:21:00 -
[1518] - Quote
I'm sorry, I'm just too lazy to read through the many bibles of informatrion which have been posted or will be posted, I'm far too busy running through all my industry focused efforts which I have trained long and hard to do over the last 7 or so years with my many toons that I have paid a small mortgage for..... Now to find out that much of that effort will have been wasted as the important restrictions are being lifted to make things easier for newer players and also to hand over even more of the real money making opportunities to Null Sec alliances once again, call me a cynic, but I have been around long enough and been involved in most gameplay types to see what is happening.
Okay rant over and onto the questions.
If you haven't already, please could you consider adding a "Deliver All Automatically" button to inventions etc. I'm not really interested in knowing how many jobs have failed or succeeded (If I want to know that I could choose to deliver manually) this is an intensive waste of time to have me clicking the deliver button 11 times per toon I am running invention jobs with etc. Please sort that out.
I take it from your comments that we might be getting a "Build/Invent/research/copy All" button, hopefully this will mean that whatever bpo/c's and materials I have loaded up will create multiple jobs to the limit of available resources with one click, that would be nice.
Oh and another thing... as the cost of this game is basically for skill training, please could you consider stacking skill points based on time a toon is paid for, this way if people cannot set skills for whatever reason (offline due to ill health, on vacation, maybe just forgot), at least they can utilise the skill training time they have paid for instead of losing it. I know there will be complications for implants usage etc. but this should not be rocket science to sort out.
Thanks for your consideration, please consider the long term players that may not want to be part of a large alliance but have been the backbone of this game for as long as it has existed.
Hugs and Kisses.
Dave3 |
Berluth Luthian
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 13:28:00 -
[1519] - Quote
I assume Faction Warfare station slots will have a different cost scaling amount based on system upgrade level? Otherwise one of the few meaningful bonuses that system upgrading gives will be eliminated. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
636
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 14:37:00 -
[1520] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Try again. I have all the skills trained on 4 accounts. I used to mine in nullsec with mining crystals before CCP broke the Exhumers cargo bays. http://eveboard.com/pilot/Urziel99 take a look for yourself. I only stopped mining in nullsec after CCP broke hidden belts. As to your blather about BPO's in a POS We can remote build with BPO's and BPC's now. The only proviso is to make sure that the print and the materials are both in the same hangar division. I've done it with T1 and T2 mods for 2 years now. Standings are however being changed if 6.66 can't give tax-free refines then those standings are by default worth less than they were pre-patch. As to your last line, I expect such idiocy from TEST, you can tell your masters you have upheld their reputation for cluelessness.
So what exactly are you complaining about if you have all the skills? Nothing wrong with Exhumers, except you can get better yield out of a Procurer than anything else except a Hulk, and for far less isk risked. Wanna go afk? Mine in a Mack. Worried about rats? Mine in a Skiff.
Hidden belts still exist. Now you even get lots of low-ends like trit and pyerite. How are they broken?
In nul, standings were irrelevent (assuming you had standings to dock), unless the owning corp imposed a refinery tax based on standings. Most alliances have a flat rate of 0%. If they don't pick a new one.
In hisec NPC stations, standings will effect your refine rate same as before. But come this summer one needs to actually have the refining skills to do it. Since you have them, why are you complaining? The only thing that will effect you is that you will need to train Veldspar, Scordite, Plagioclase, and Pyroxeres Refining to 5. I already did it. It took me all of 2 weeks. I even threw in Jaspet, Kernite, and Omber for the lulz.
And as for being able to remotely produce anything, every time I've tried it the game tells me that the materials need to be in the same location as the BPs. But then again, when I was producing in nulsec, I had an entire factory station mostly to myself. So I didn't need to build at POS. (Saved me a crap ton of isk.)
And as for my melodramatic parody spurge, if you can't tell it was for comedic effect, perhaps you should lighten up and try to enjoy the game once in a while.
So far, the only thing that is actually going to change is that those who refuse to adapt will end up paying more to produce stuff, and thus will not profit as much or at all. But you're so focused on the injustice of it all, that you can't even see that there will be very little actual change required.
Hisec has enjoyed a massive advantage vs nulsec for 10 years. Soon people may actually build something in nulsec besides supers and titans via mineral compression.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7025
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 14:49:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Davethethird wrote: If you haven't already, please could you consider adding a "Deliver All Automatically" button to inventions etc. I'm not really interested in knowing how many jobs have failed or succeeded (If I want to know that I could choose to deliver manually) this is an intensive waste of time to have me clicking the deliver button 11 times per toon I am running invention jobs with etc. Please sort that out.
Hold down shift, click the first and the last one (so you select all of them) then hit deliver. Just keep tapping enter until the failed/succeeded windows stop popping up.
If you run your own personal altcorp you can install for corp and deliver all of your alt jobs at once using this method. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1176
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 14:53:00 -
[1522] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.
ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
379
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 15:14:00 -
[1523] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: Hisec has enjoyed a massive advantage vs nulsec for 10 years. Soon people may actually build something in nulsec besides supers and titans via mineral compression.
Hisec has a massive advantage? Ok as i'm still relatively new here could you tell me the last time hisec threw away the equivalent of 75 titans in a battle or fielded multibazillion blobs of archons?
Hisec has *no* advantages already...at least leave us the ability to run stable industry... |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
407
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 16:00:00 -
[1524] - Quote
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. |
Samsung Tsurpalen
The Chunnel Crew
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 16:09:00 -
[1525] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Soldarius wrote: Hisec has enjoyed a massive advantage vs nulsec for 10 years. Soon people may actually build something in nulsec besides supers and titans via mineral compression.
Hisec has a massive advantage? Ok as i'm still relatively new here could you tell me the last time hisec threw away the equivalent of 75 titans in a battle or fielded multibazillion blobs of archons? Hisec has *no* advantages already...at least leave us the ability to run stable industry...
Hisec does have a massive advantage when it comes to industry, and it's pretty straightforward. CONCORD and the lack of bubbles lets Hisec industrialists move freighters around like it's no big deal, whereas in nullsec you need to jump all of your stuff in (which is way harder and costs more).
That's really THE thing that separates null/low markets from highsec markets and is why nobody really builds there.
The only advantage nullsec has over high right now is that they have high end combat anomalies that can be run afk, also it's basically the only place to go for exploration |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 16:21:00 -
[1526] - Quote
Any chance of an public, industry-related API for stations? |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 16:26:00 -
[1527] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Soldarius wrote: Hisec has enjoyed a massive advantage vs nulsec for 10 years. Soon people may actually build something in nulsec besides supers and titans via mineral compression.
Hisec has a massive advantage? Ok as i'm still relatively new here could you tell me the last time hisec threw away the equivalent of 75 titans in a battle or fielded multibazillion blobs of archons? Hisec has *no* advantages already...at least leave us the ability to run stable industry...
If you really do have it hard, then be proud that CCP thinks you can take a harder lot in life.
May the Hulkageddon games be ever in your favor.... |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 16:33:00 -
[1528] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Seems CCP is making great efforts to murder there baby with death designed by a thousand cuts , PVP all the way guys, if it moves shoot it.
Want more space, we will give you more space, odd they never noticed that the vast majority of 0.0 is unused currently, and of course if you do choose to go there to mine, we have an answer for that as well, it's called PvP...Heavily armed Player verses utterly unarmed Player but if your alert and have intel, we have the answer to that to, The good old hot dropping cloaked camper, that will put a stop to your game for the day, maybe you could try industry instead, but hang on a minute, we cannot have players actually doing anything constructive that will attract them in this game can we, enter stage right the dancing Nerf monsters singing the Spam song, forget that idea, Get out of here player, your not wanted in 0.0, begone back to Empire were you belong, Not much point of logging in at all except to change skills, Leave the great expanse of 0.0 to those huge Alliances and there roaming gangs of gankers but with not much mining going on and ratting getting nerfed as well, not much fun for them really, No one there you see, there all turtled up around there brand new ESS, That's ok, we can steal there ISK and kill the ESS and put a Cloaked Black Ops camper in system, PvP at it's very best, no Players, no chance of kills, win win win for you.
If you read that lot you might think I was bitter about all this but would you be surprised to learn that I am in no way bitter about it, I actually find it hilarious that CCP would indeed try to kill off EVE in this manner rather than just pulling the plug on it, instead allowing it's workforce to systematically destroy EVE simply because they failed to understand the player base and realise that it is not only the EVE economy that works just like real life.
There is a point when a person recognises the facts, if I do that then this will happen and everything I have done so far will be wasted and in the absence of incentive people do nothing, specifically they do not do what you predict they will do when you design changes in this game.
The small item known as incentive brings with it the thought that maybe CCP should consider there strategy with a little more thought, accept there has to be a reason to change something and when you do you should really take care to fully understand what will happen when you do, if it adds to or maintains the incentive factor for a player then that's ok, but if it detracts from that the results will cascade though EVE, and you will not get what you predicted, butterfly effect applies.
Look back at Plexing, you changed that, ostensibly to make it better in your view, result was that many players just stopped doing it at all, no incentive you see, you added new sites, along with that childish Pac Man game and Ghost sites, result even less players wanted to do it, good earner for those few that mastered it, majority just could not see the point in it and will not engage, it is not all about risk verses reward in the end, there has to be a good helping of incentive, without that your time has been wasted and our's as well, similar with mining you changed that again in your view to make it better, result less people do it, wonder how many Roquals are currently sitting in 0.0 stations unused.
Now you have turned you attention to Industry, but I would take care, from what I have read so far I can reliably predict you will not get the result you are planning for.
I tried to read this entire thing and understand what it meant, but I just don't.
What is the specific problem again?
Did you perhaps mean to post this on a different character? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 17:11:00 -
[1529] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Seems CCP is ... PVP all the way guys, if it moves shoot it.
Want more ... industry ... that will attract ... Players ... win win win for you.
If you read that ... you might think I was ... hilarious ... instead ... the EVE economy that works just like real life.
... facts ... will happen and ... design changes ... this game.
The small ... reason to change something ... for a player ... detracts from ... what ... butterfly effect [implies].
Look ... you changed ... 0.0 stations...
Now ... I ... care ... what ... you are planning
That's how I skimmed it. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 17:16:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Alyxportur wrote:marly cortez wrote:Seems CCP is ... PVP all the way guys, if it moves shoot it.
Want more ... industry ... that will attract ... Players ... win win win for you.
If you read that ... you might think I was ... hilarious ... instead ... the EVE economy that works just like real life.
... facts ... will happen and ... design changes ... this game.
The small ... reason to change something ... for a player ... detracts from ... what ... butterfly effect [implies].
Look ... you changed ... 0.0 stations...
Now ... I ... care ... what ... you are planning That's how I skimmed it. This is probably the first post in the history of the forums that has actually used ellipses correctly. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
84
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 17:32:00 -
[1531] - Quote
DooDoo Gum wrote:Querns wrote:Alyxportur wrote:marly cortez wrote:Seems CCP is ... PVP all the way guys, if it moves shoot it.
Want more ... industry ... that will attract ... Players ... win win win for you.
If you read that ... you might think I was ... hilarious ... instead ... the EVE economy that works just like real life.
... facts ... will happen and ... design changes ... this game.
The small ... reason to change something ... for a player ... detracts from ... what ... butterfly effect [implies].
Look ... you changed ... 0.0 stations...
Now ... I ... care ... what ... you are planning That's how I skimmed it. This is probably the first post in the history of the forums that has actually used ellipses correctly. i thought ellipses were meant to shorten sentences?
And paragraph rants? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 17:33:00 -
[1532] - Quote
DooDoo Gum wrote:Querns wrote: This is probably the first post in the history of the forums that has actually used ellipses correctly.
i thought ellipses were meant to shorten sentences? They are, and while it's definitely being abused in that case, it's still technically correct. What I was referring to was when people use ellipses to trail off a sentence...
like that. That's not right. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2730
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 17:47:00 -
[1533] - Quote
Question for CCP:
On patch day, what happens to queued up jobs? Will they start after the patch as then there are an unlimited number of slots? Or will the queue remain for just those jobs, and only be eliminated once the queue empties out?
Will the cost of those jobs installed before the patch change? That is, will I get a new bill?
Somehow I foresee a zillion manufacturing and BPO research jobs all starting at once at Jita on expansion day. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
84
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 19:36:00 -
[1534] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Question for CCP:
On patch day, what happens to queued up jobs? Will they start after the patch as then there are an unlimited number of slots? Or will the queue remain for just those jobs, and only be eliminated once the queue empties out?
Will the cost of those jobs installed before the patch change? That is, will I get a new bill?
Somehow I foresee a zillion manufacturing and BPO research jobs all starting at once at Jita on expansion day.
I'll queue some RAM jobs to see what happens.
Also, the price of warehouse cans in Jita isn't skyrocketing yet? |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
133
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 19:37:00 -
[1535] - Quote
What I've learned from this thread is that many high sec industrialists have highly vested interests in keeping manufacturing an obscure, tedious, boring system, which requires inane and irrelevant grinds like raising standings via missions for a POS, etc., in order for new industrialists to make a reasonable profit.
Overall, as a player who has never touched manufacturing but would someday like to, I am optimistic about these changes, but I think a few bigger issues need to be addressed:
1. If POSes are going to become more accessible (a great change imo) and more useful, this makes the POS revamp all the more needed.
2. Along the same lines as 1., something will need to be done about offline POSes--this is a pretty common practice at the moment, and there is no real incentive for groups to declare war and grind out an offline POS. Many suggestions have been floating around and all of them could work--hacking offline POSes, only getting a criminal flag when attacking one, etc.
3. Null becoming more profitable is great, but it needs to be more dangerous--particularly deep null which is in some ways even safer than high sec. I am also hoping low sec does not get the short end of the stick here, and that it receives a nice boost to industry benefits (and hey, why not improve FW benefits as well? Currently FW upgrades to industry are useless--why not revamp them a bit in line with these changes?) |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3493
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 20:07:00 -
[1536] - Quote
Querns wrote:DooDoo Gum wrote:Querns wrote: This is probably the first post in the history of the forums that has actually used ellipses correctly.
i thought ellipses were meant to shorten sentences? They are, and while it's definitely being abused in that case, it's still technically correct. What I was referring to was when people use ellipses to trail off a sentence... like that. That's not right.
Wikipedia wrote:To mark the occurrence of aposiopesis with punctuation, an em dash (GÇö) or an ellipsis (GǪ) may be used. |
Nathalie LaPorte
Republic University Minmatar Republic
242
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 20:33:00 -
[1537] - Quote
Who cares about these arcane grammar 'rules'...?
...Oh, you're just correcting someone who brought it up out of nowhere?
Well then, let me address the former use case: "They are[...]it's still technically correct."
This is also not true. Technically correct use would be use of the 3 dot ellipsis mid-sentence and the 4 dot ellipsis to indicate an omission beginning at the end of a sentenceGÇöI like to bracket the ellipsis to indicate that you're using them functionally and not quoting them, following the MLA style, although the other major usage handbooks do not address this.
Now, can we please stop talking about useless grammar that no one even uses...? As Abraham Lincoln famously said: "If I'd saved time by using more ellipses when posting on the Internet, I could have checked up on the veracity of the authorship of various quotes I found there, as well as many other important tasks such as ... and so, the Civil War would have been easily averted." |
Skalle Pande
Teknisk Forlag
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 21:28:00 -
[1538] - Quote
Falkor1984 wrote:Changing a queue system for production to a cost system is a very very bad idea.
Granted, the queue system sucks, but a cost system will lead to people having to haul over the place to get some profit. So basically they now have to haul which is basically waiting AT the keyboard instead of waiting AWAY from the keyboard under the queue system.
This is another example of an ill thought through change that causes more boredom, like we had so many lately.
I think the right way to do it is give the player the option to either join the queue OR pay more for a rush job. That way I think you get the best of both worlds. Sounds sensible to me. But if the cost part is meant to act as a larger ISK sink than what it is presently, consider making slot cost dependent on player standing with the NPC corp in question. Ideally, standings should be of large (larger than now) importance, not lesser, as is planned now. However, in practice the gaining of standing would then need to be much more interesting than it is now.
|
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
84
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 21:57:00 -
[1539] - Quote
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
... beginning at the end of a sentence ...
Really, wouldn't it be ending at the end of a sentence? I often find myself beginning at the beginning of a sentence with them.
|
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
141
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 01:16:00 -
[1540] - Quote
I didnt see this mentioned in the 25 pages I have read so far... If all slots are being removed (the blog does say station and starbase) why put up anything more than a small POS other than defensive reasons? The fuel you would save would surely pay for a new small stick if you were wardecced. Besides a bit of tax, will there be an additional cost for POS jobs? If not, why install more than one lab? |
|
Alador Afuran
29
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 05:17:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Quote:The good thing about locking down your BPOs atm is that everyone in your corp can use them to produce in your POS, after the patch you would have to unlock a multi billion BPO, bring it to a pos and lock it again and hope that noone gains starbase operator and fueler roles (which you usually need to do anything relevant in a POS) and messes with the POS by offlineing it and then shooting the hangar or the laboratory. Exactly! We were roleplay as researching LAB and we have more than 450 BPOs available to copy for everyone in corp. I'm not going to unlock all BPOs and moving them to the LAB. It will be self destruction for our game. More pvp opportunity? It's ok. But what about others? So many risk. Where is benefits? |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
29
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 05:27:00 -
[1542] - Quote
Alador Afuran wrote:Quote:The good thing about locking down your BPOs atm is that everyone in your corp can use them to produce in your POS, after the patch you would have to unlock a multi billion BPO, bring it to a pos and lock it again and hope that noone gains starbase operator and fueler roles (which you usually need to do anything relevant in a POS) and messes with the POS by offlineing it and then shooting the hangar or the laboratory. Exactly! We were roleplay as researching LAB and we have more than 450 BPOs available to copy for everyone in corp. I'm not going to unlock all BPOs and moving them to the LAB. It will be self destruction for our game. More pvp opportunity? It's ok. But what about others? So many risk. Where is benefits?
Easy, there are none. It seems CCP has forgotten how much the things cost. They, as usual do not respect the vastly higher amounts of isk your average industrialist has on the table vs your average pvper. Only serious cap/supercap pilots could come close as far as isk spent on tools of the trade. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
381
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 05:44:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Samsung Tsurpalen wrote:
Hisec does have a massive advantage when it comes to industry, and it's pretty straightforward. CONCORD and the lack of bubbles lets Hisec industrialists move freighters around like it's no big deal, whereas in nullsec you need to jump all of your stuff in (which is way harder and costs more).
That's really THE thing that separates null/low markets from hisec markets and is why nobody really builds there.
The only advantage nullsec has over high right now is that there is access to high end combat anomalies that can be run afk, the best PI extraction rates, and it's basically the only place to go for exploration
So apart from those three things that generate huge incom not even feasible in hisec...along with moon mining and pretty good safety within sov protection null has no advantage???
The freight advantage you speak of in hisec? Move more than 100 mil and you will be ganked. Afk in anything and you are likely to be ganked. Compare that to null where you just said that it's possible to afk the supposedly hardest combat anoms? As for CONCORD? They show up after you've been ganked and looted...big help...
Now i'm not saying hisec is too hard as another poster seemed to think but it has different challenges, and to make money from industry there takes a lot of effort and planning. My point was that there needs to be different dynamics for each security region otherwise they will stagnate and die. It makes sense for hisec to be stable industry, losec to be dangerous borderlands and null to be the equivalent of gold rush heaven for resources.
There need to remain good reason to move between sectors hence my belief that the current hisec manufacturing state is healthy for the game. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
381
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 06:00:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
3. Null becoming more profitable is great...
Agree generally with most of your post except this. Null is already the most profitable by a large margin...making it more so is unnecessary and more unbalancing in my opinion.
Profit from resources and combat should increase moving from hi to nullsec. Profit from business should decrease from hi to nullsec. Resources should be more readily available in null but harder to process as this takes complex factories. Hisec should have better facilities as stability allows for them to be optimized.
This would lead to greater travel between sectors and a richer game. |
Alador Afuran
29
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 06:22:00 -
[1545] - Quote
Quote:Easy, there are none. It seems CCP has forgotten how much the things cost. They, as usual do not respect the vastly higher amounts of isk your average industrialist has on the table vs your average pvper. Only serious cap/supercap pilots could come close as far as isk spent on tools of the trade. Yep. Personally I have not really worried about "how we can survive in summer". My question is "What is the purpose of our surviving?" I have no time for playing EvE every day. We got fun doing some things as researchers whenever we had time. Now it seems easier to end the game than continue playing. |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 06:25:00 -
[1546] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
3. Null becoming more profitable is great...
Agree generally with most of your post except this. Null is already the most profitable by a large margin...making it more so is unnecessary and more unbalancing in my opinion. Profit from resources and combat should increase moving from hi to nullsec. Profit from business should decrease from hi to nullsec. Resources should be more readily available in null but harder to process as this takes complex factories. Hisec should have better facilities as stability allows for them to be optimized. This would lead to greater travel between sectors and a richer game.
This incessant drive by CCP to make Null even more profitable belies the real issue with Null and its lack of inhabitants...Null Sucks, Sov mechanics suck, they should just rename Null to Dyson it sucks so bad. As a result most players call High Sec home because there is a chance to play the game without being "called up to defend" or forced to fly specific ships/fits or basically kissing the a** of whomever you have to rent from for the privilege of living there. Fix the Sov mechanics and then possibly Null will become more enticing. Making it more profitable will not have the migratory effect that CCP intends. Rather these changes will drive another nail in the coffin of disenfranchisement that High Sec players currently reside in. |
G'Kar Rin
Serenity. CORP. Beacon Light Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 06:52:00 -
[1547] - Quote
CCP How do i go about getting a refund in SP or Plex for the time/ISK I spent training up loot processing skills that are no longer relevant? |
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC No Safe Haven
52
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 06:58:00 -
[1548] - Quote
G'Kar Rin wrote:CCP How do i go about getting a refund in SP or Plex for the time/ISK I spent training up loot processing skills that are no longer relevant?
How do you even know yet, noone ever mentioned they will no longer be useful, the number of things to manufacture won't change just the slots are not there... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15193
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 09:11:00 -
[1549] - Quote
Anders Madeveda wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
3. Null becoming more profitable is great...
Agree generally with most of your post except this. Null is already the most profitable by a large margin...making it more so is unnecessary and more unbalancing in my opinion. Profit from resources and combat should increase moving from hi to nullsec. Profit from business should decrease from hi to nullsec. Resources should be more readily available in null but harder to process as this takes complex factories. Hisec should have better facilities as stability allows for them to be optimized. This would lead to greater travel between sectors and a richer game. This incessant drive by CCP to make Null even more profitable belies the real issue with Null and its lack of inhabitants...Null Sucks, Sov mechanics suck, they should just rename Null to Dyson it sucks so bad. As a result most players call High Sec home because there is a chance to play the game without being "called up to defend" or forced to fly specific ships/fits or basically kissing the a** of whomever you have to rent from for the privilege of living there. Fix the Sov mechanics and then possibly Null will become more enticing. Making it more profitable will not have the migratory effect that CCP intends. Rather these changes will drive another nail in the coffin of disenfranchisement that High Sec players currently reside in.
Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec? Here is my CSM9 endorsement list - vote for diversity of expertise : Ali Aras-á Mangala Solaris-á Mike Azariah-á Steve Ronuken James Arget-á Xander Phoena-á Sugar Kyle-á corbexx-á mynnna-á progodlegend-á Psychotic Monk-á Jayne Fillion
|
Nathalie LaPorte
Republic University Minmatar Republic
242
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 09:37:00 -
[1550] - Quote
Alyxportur wrote:Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
... beginning at the end of a sentence ...
Really, wouldn't it be ending at the end of a sentence? I often find myself beginning at the beginning of a sentence with them.
It does not matter whether the omitted portion ends at the end of a sentence or not, the criterion for using a 3 or 4 dot ellipsis is whether or not the omission begins at the end of a sentence. A 4 dot ellipsis is always of the form . ... , not ... . |
|
Castles
Sovereign Power Company
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 09:47:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Anders Madeveda wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
3. Null becoming more profitable is great...
Agree generally with most of your post except this. Null is already the most profitable by a large margin...making it more so is unnecessary and more unbalancing in my opinion. Profit from resources and combat should increase moving from hi to nullsec. Profit from business should decrease from hi to nullsec. Resources should be more readily available in null but harder to process as this takes complex factories. Hisec should have better facilities as stability allows for them to be optimized. This would lead to greater travel between sectors and a richer game. This incessant drive by CCP to make Null even more profitable belies the real issue with Null and its lack of inhabitants...Null Sucks, Sov mechanics suck, they should just rename Null to Dyson it sucks so bad. As a result most players call High Sec home because there is a chance to play the game without being "called up to defend" or forced to fly specific ships/fits or basically kissing the a** of whomever you have to rent from for the privilege of living there. Fix the Sov mechanics and then possibly Null will become more enticing. Making it more profitable will not have the migratory effect that CCP intends. Rather these changes will drive another nail in the coffin of disenfranchisement that High Sec players currently reside in. Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?
Why waste everyone's time with a rhetorical question, Malcanis? State your point if you have one. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
381
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 09:53:00 -
[1552] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in hi-sec?
Can't comment on 'massively and overwhelmingly' without statistics to quantify it (i'd be interested to see them) but even if it is why is that bad? Null is definitely 'massively and overwhelmingly' more profitable in income from resources, moon mining (Where is that in hisec?), ratting opportunities (AFK missioning in carriers is a common theme in threads it seems) and any of the other income streams I may have forgotten. Why is it bad for it to be necessary to trade between the 'safe' (yeah right) hisec areas that provide stability for S&I to flourish, and the outlands where resources are greatest (by far)?
It must be better for the game to have areas where different careers have better opportunites. Exploration, resource extraction and combat already have much better value in null. Having it be advantageous to move those goods to hisec creates player movement and interaction which can only be good.
People will reply with risk vs reward about hisec income, but what happened to effort vs reward (which after all is what risk management boils down to).. To make these vast sums of profit in hisec (again I'd love to see the stats on this compared to lo/nullsec) requires a great deal of effort. S&I has a large time and isk investment to become profitable and provides the markets for the moon goo, high end minerals, goods for t3 production etc. If everything is pushed to losec for maximum profit why would anyone ever leave their own safe little sov enclave for anything but blob warfare or interceptor roams?
For the economy to remain healthy there needs to be movement of both players and goods, import and export from each area must remain strong. One of the biggest draws of Eve for me is the ability to have hisec industrial areas where I make steady isk. losec riskier areas where I get materials for industry, and nullsec providing me with stuff I can't get yet. I interact with players in each of these areas in different ways and the game to me is all the better for that. If I am forced to move to null to have any hope of making reasonable isk where is the player choice now? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
410
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 10:55:00 -
[1553] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?
Are you going to dispute that only a very small minority cares about S&I in 00 sec? For those, a buff without this ridiculous stuff happening around High sec S&I would have been enough.
I also point back to this question in expectation of a satisfying answer. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1021
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 11:00:00 -
[1554] - Quote
Time for the next dev blog. This is pointless without the figures. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 11:00:00 -
[1555] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Are you going to dispute that only a very small minority cares about S&I in 00 sec? For those, a buff without this ridiculous stuff happening around High sec S&I would have been enough.
I don't even think industry in null should be buffed...why should it? I am happy that S&I is being addressed but in my opinion it should be for the betterment of the game features not the betterment of profit in any one area. I think I've already made clear my view that hisec *should* be better for S&I anyway...waiting for reasoned arguments as to why this shouldn't be the case and I'm surprised I haven't received any yet... |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1579
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 11:28:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:I think I've already made clear my view that hisec *should* be better for S&I anyway...waiting for reasoned arguments as to why this shouldn't be the case and I'm surprised I haven't received any yet...
Oh, probably because science is so much better when done in the middle of frakking nowhere deep in mountain caves or other wild areas. You know, all that infrastructure cities provide is overrated anyway.
CCP, Y U no new blog yet? I wanna know more about changes in parts I have no idea about and I want it NAOW! I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 12:48:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:CCP, Y U no new blog yet? I wanna know more about changes in parts I have no idea about and I want it NAOW!
/sign
I would really appreciate early information about all the number stuff and most importantly on the actual planned date for the patch. Changes of that magnitude require a not so tiny amount of preparation on the side of us industrialists, i.e. I'd like to prepare all my upcoming ME/PE stuff to be timed so that it finishes right before the changes hit.
Ah, and CCP, please clarify the issue regarding queuing of jobs under the new system (saving costs by queuing vs. being forced to swallow scaling taxes). |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
30
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:16:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?
Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec?
Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec?
I await your meager defense with baited breath. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:28:00 -
[1559] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Malcanis wrote: Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?
Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec? Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec? I await your meager defense with baited breath.
Would be interesting to see the stats on capital investment compared to return on that too for nullsec activities compared to losec and hisec... |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
411
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:37:00 -
[1560] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Malcanis wrote: Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?
Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec? Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec? I await your meager defense with baited breath. Would be interesting to see the stats on capital investment compared to return on that too for nullsec activities compared to losec and hisec...
That's a simple answer: not high enough.
|
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2736
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:47:00 -
[1561] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Time for the next dev blog. This is pointless without the figures.
Well, if they do go chronologically, the blogs that really matter are at the end. Assuming the new release is in early June, what, 6 weeks away, the Greyscale blogs, the ones that really matter, will be out a few days before the release, since it has been almost a week since the last one.
Or, they could end up releasing all of them at Fanfest. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7026
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 14:35:00 -
[1562] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote: Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec?
yes, no (no market), no (no market), no (highends are insanely depressed due to the way grav anoms are set up so mining in null is not significantly more profitable), somewhat, yes, yes, no, no (sov null has no npc missions)
this is of course ignoring the risk, the ease of disrupting these activities, and the costs of conquering and maintaining the space
Urziel99 wrote: Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec?
you have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table, but get virtually zero risk and incredibly low requirement to log in
industry is a high-capital low-effort activity and so naturally it requires much more capital than low-capital high-effort activities
any good industrialist would know that effort is a resource so i'm guessing you're not one
edit: oh for moon mining and reactions you have to put way more isk on the table (and it is actually at risk) than some highsec industrialist Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
638
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 14:38:00 -
[1563] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Malcanis wrote: Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?
Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec? Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec? I await your meager defense with baited breath.
I won't wait for Malcanis to answer. I can do it.
First we need to separate out what is actually S&I and what is not. Ratting, exploration, plexing, salvaging, and missions are not S&I. They are PvE. There is no science or industry in any of those. Why you included those in your post is unknown to me other than to possibly provide a false sense of correctness that does not exist. I think they call that a Straw-Man argument. I could be wrong.
Exploration is a bit fuzzy because it involves the gathering of science-related materials. But at no point do you have to engage in any science or industry to do that. You do not need an industrial ship. In fact, the best ships for data and relic sites are covops (combat) frigates, the SoE faction frigate and cruiser, and exploration-fit strategic cruisers. So that leaves moons, gases, mining, and manufacturing.
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/reactions/
Moon mining, moon goo reactions, gas harvesting, and drug mfg, can only be done in 0.3 space or lower. Fullerenes (precursors to hybrid polymers) can only be gathered in w-space. So they cannot be compared to hisec except in strictly by profitability or lack thereof.
The best reaction is Fermionic Condensates, a moon goo reaction. The listed net for that reaction is apx. 1.3B isk per month, before POS fuel, transportation costs, and market fees are considered. It can only be produced in 0.3 sec or lower. The preferred tower type is Gallente and it will run you 40 blocks per hour. 40 blocks per hour * 24 hours * 30 days * 15,000 isk/block = 432,000,000 isk per month. So the tower will eat up a huge chunk of your net. It leaves just about enough to PLEX 1 account and afford a T2 cruiser once a month. It can be done with 1 character, though 2 or more is typical.
Any complex reaction requires a large tower. So any complex reaction that shows a profit of less than the fuel cost is a loss if you bought the materials off the market.
For the nulsec dwellers that own the moons, they operate vast numbers of towers to run all the reactions required to get to that level of profitability. Every tower used to operate an unprofitable reaction eats of profits. Fuel costs eat up the lion's share of the potential profits and greatly increases the amount of effort required.
Hisec industry requires... all of 4 steps.
- Buy mins remotely.
- Courier contract to factory remotely.
- Build stuff remotely.
- Courier contract back to market remotely.
- Profit?
Mining can be done anywhere. The profitability (or lack thereof) is entirely dependent on the mineral value of the ores and how much volume of ore a miner can pull per a given amount of time. Since the Jita value of the mineral content of ice and ore is the same in nulsec as in hisec, we have a solid basis for comparison.
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ore/ https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ore/ice.html
In almost all categories, ice is better isk/hr than any ore. The most profitable ice is Dark Glitter. This is available only in 0.1 or lower sec space. So in that way, yes, you are right. But other ices are available in hisec, and they are almost all worth more than any nulsec ore. So, no, mining is not strictly better in nulsec than in hisec. An ice miner in hisec can make just as much as if he were in nulsec with much less risk.
Manufacturing is in no way more profitable in nulsec if you are importing raw materials and exporting finished product. The markets there are much smaller due to the obviously lower population density. If you can source enough raw materials for your products and there is enough demand, you can make a decent living.
The primary industry in nulsec is supercapital/titan production. For years this has depended on mineral compression to function. But this summer mineral compression is getting the big ol' nerf bat.
In sovereign space, all your stuff can be lost within the space of a few days. In hisec, you can function without undocking and have no threat of losing anything ever.
Only the edge case, exploration, is clearly more profitable in nulsec than in hisec.
Doing any of these requires far more investment in nulsec than in hisec. You need jump freighters, POSes, stations, sov, and cyno alts to name a few things above and beyond the simple cost of materials and couriers that you have in hisec.
We won't even talk about the risks and effort require in w-space.
Now tell me again how much better nulsec industry is compared to hisec. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 14:52:00 -
[1564] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:... snippety snip ... you have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table, but get virtually zero risk and incredibly low requirement to log in
industry is a high-capital low-effort activity and so naturally it requires much more capital than low-capital high-effort activities
any good industrialist would know that effort is a resource so i'm guessing you're not one
Interesting to see the different views on this but I stand by my point which your view somewhat backs up. Hisec should (in my opinion) be where the bulk of S&I takes place due to that stability (I won't say safety because I disagree there), nullsec should be the major resource areas, but S&I should suffer due to the inherent instability of the area. You state that there is no market in null for many of the resources, that simply means it is a logistical exercise to get the raw goods to the market that requires them. The flow of people, materials and finished goods back and forth is the key to a healthy economy.
An industrialist knows that the best materials almost always come from the most dangerous areas...they would also never dream of putting a fragile hitech S&I centre in such a location. The real trick is to balance the extraction, transport and production elements for maximum profit. I very much doubt that the % profit on manufacturing in hisec is higher than the % profit on running combat anoms etc in null when comparing the amount of isk in play in the transaction (goods for the S&I player, ship for the anom runner).
As you say effort is a resource, and profit is the result of selling something at a higher value than the effort required to produce it. If nullsec folks want more of the S&I profit that is sooo vast in hisec then why don't they train an alt to run the S&I side of things there and turn their own raw materials into huge profits without any middle men? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7026
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 14:52:00 -
[1565] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Are you going to dispute that only a very small minority cares about S&I in 00 sec? For those, a buff without this ridiculous stuff happening around High sec S&I would have been enough. a very small minority of people in 0.0 care about industry because industry is impractical in 0.0 so those people get bored and leave
are you going to dispute that people receiving cancer treatment often die, cancer treatment kills people stop doing it Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7026
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 14:59:00 -
[1566] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Interesting to see the different views on this but I stand by my point which your view somewhat backs up. Hisec should (in my opinion) be where the bulk of S&I takes place due to that stability (I won't say safety because I disagree there), nullsec should be the major resource areas, but S&I should suffer due to the inherent instability of the area.
i don't care about ~reality~ arguments in a video game when they're not grounded in good game design and every argument that is made that is about "well reality says..." with no discussion of why that is good game design and balance is junk.
highsec will continue to have a large quantity of industry because it's stable and many industrialists are risk-averse. however those willing to move to null will reap increased rewards for their massively increased risk and increased expenses.
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I very much doubt that the % profit on manufacturing in hisec is higher than the % profit on running combat anoms etc in null when comparing the amount of isk in play in the transaction (goods for the S&I player, ship for the anom runner).
i very much doubt that this lump of titanium has as much citrus as this lemon
you keep trying to compare radically different methods of making isk: industry is a high-capital low-effort way to make isk through small returns on large sums that scales up. anoming is a low-capital high-effort way to make isk through large returns on small initial sums that does not scale up
you keep trying to compare things that are not at all alike and ignoring why they're different. industry is how you become rich because of compound interest. mining and anoming are how you build up initial sums of money because the return, while capped in absolute terms, is much higher in percentage terms when you're poor
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: As you say effort is a resource, and profit is the result of selling something at a higher value than the effort required to produce it. If nullsec folks want more of the S&I profit that is sooo vast in hisec then why don't they train an alt to run the S&I side of things there and turn their own raw materials into huge profits without any middle men?
they do. because industry is so broken in 0.0 with the current model, they put that alt in highsec even if they'd rather do industry in null. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 15:26:00 -
[1567] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Interesting to see the different views ...blurb....
i don't care about ~reality~ arguments in a video game when they're not grounded in good game design and every argument that is made that is about "well reality says..." with no discussion of why that is good game design and balance is junk. highsec will continue to have a large quantity of industry because it's stable and many industrialists are risk-averse. however those willing to move to null will reap increased rewards for their massively increased risk and increased expenses.
In no place here did I mention reality, I was talking in game terms. As stated I believe that each area should have it's own niche to promote travel between them in one way or another. Don't like the people who live in hisec who make moey from industry? Do it better than them then, beat them in market PvP rather than just buff nullsec for an advantage for no reason other than because it is nullsec.
Weaselior wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I very much doubt that the % profit on manufacturing in hisec is higher than the % profit on running combat anoms etc in null when comparing the amount of isk in play in the transaction (goods for the S&I player, ship for the anom runner).
i very much doubt that this lump of titanium has as much citrus as this lemon you keep trying to compare radically different methods of making isk: industry is a high-capital low-effort way to make isk through small returns on large sums that scales up. anoming is a low-capital high-effort way to make isk through large returns on small initial sums that does not scale up you keep trying to compare things that are not at all alike and ignoring why they're different. industry is how you become rich because of compound interest. mining and anoming are how you build up initial sums of money because the return, while capped in absolute terms, is much higher in percentage terms when you're poor
Indeed I was comparing different means of generating isk, again with my point being that each region should in fact have a unique way of making isk that is better than the other regions. If it is so hard to make isk in nullsec compared to hisec how do the large alliances produce enough to afford so many titans? Let alone throw so many away in one battle...
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: As you say effort is a resource, and profit is the result of selling something at a higher value than the effort required to produce it. If nullsec folks want more of the S&I profit that is sooo vast in hisec then why don't they train an alt to run the S&I side of things there and turn their own raw materials into huge profits without any middle men?
they do. because industry is so broken in 0.0 with the current model, they put that alt in highsec even if they'd rather do industry in null.[/quote]
So most would rather do S&I in null with their S&I alt? Why? Convenience? This would then be giving a higher return on less effort.
I will clarify my point in case I drifted over the last few posts. I am happy that S&I is better in hisec and that resource generation and reward is higher in null (with losec lay somewhere between). I do not see and still am to be convinced that S&I *needs* to be better in null for the improvement of the game. This would lead to less movement of people and materials, stagnating trade and homogenizing the player base into a few nullsec alliances. Hisec would effectively become an oversized training ground and those who do not have the time required to dedicate to a nullsec lifestyle would be excluded from the game to all intents and purposes. |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 15:40:00 -
[1568] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Anders Madeveda wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
3. Null becoming more profitable is great...
Agree generally with most of your post except this. Null is already the most profitable by a large margin...making it more so is unnecessary and more unbalancing in my opinion. Profit from resources and combat should increase moving from hi to nullsec. Profit from business should decrease from hi to nullsec. Resources should be more readily available in null but harder to process as this takes complex factories. Hisec should have better facilities as stability allows for them to be optimized. This would lead to greater travel between sectors and a richer game. This incessant drive by CCP to make Null even more profitable belies the real issue with Null and its lack of inhabitants...Null Sucks, Sov mechanics suck, they should just rename Null to Dyson it sucks so bad. As a result most players call High Sec home because there is a chance to play the game without being "called up to defend" or forced to fly specific ships/fits or basically kissing the a** of whomever you have to rent from for the privilege of living there. Fix the Sov mechanics and then possibly Null will become more enticing. Making it more profitable will not have the migratory effect that CCP intends. Rather these changes will drive another nail in the coffin of disenfranchisement that High Sec players currently reside in. Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?
What is there to dispute? Looking at raw numbers tells us that manufacturing is concentrated in High-Sec...as it should be. What rational civilization would place the heart of its production capabilities in a high risk, unstable area like Null? My point is not that High Sec manufacturing is not more profitable than Null, but rather that Null is broken(even the precious Mittani says so). Throat punching High Sec Industrialists and then pointing to the Null door will not have the intended effect, at least in the way CCP/CSM believes it will. I would rather unsub my 4 Industry accounts, mothball my well researched BPO library and wait for the accountants at CCP to force the Dev team to see the light.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
411
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 15:49:00 -
[1569] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Are you going to dispute that only a very small minority cares about S&I in 00 sec? For those, a buff without this ridiculous stuff happening around High sec S&I would have been enough. a very small minority of people in 0.0 care about industry because industry is impractical in 0.0 so those people get bored and leave are you going to dispute that people receiving cancer treatment often die, cancer treatment kills people stop doing it
No, and that's not what I implied at all. Read and try to understand again.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
411
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:09:00 -
[1570] - Quote
You surely know it best. I don't see how my point (make 00 industry better and more competitive, while keeping High sec intact and competitive) is bad, but you are probably right. |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
153
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:10:00 -
[1571] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec?
Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec?
I await your meager defense with baited breath. I won't wait for Malcanis to answer. I can do it. First we need to separate out what is actually S&I and what is not. ... I think they call that a Straw-Man argument. I could be wrong.
A straw man argument is made when you covertly try to replace an argument with a different argument which is easier for you to argue. The argument being made is clearly that null sec has a large variety of profitable activities. Obviously this is a much harder argument to disagree with and therefore you have chosen to ignore it.
Soldarius wrote:https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/reactions/
Moon mining, moon goo reactions, gas harvesting, and drug mfg, can only be done in 0.3 space or lower. Fullerenes (precursors to hybrid polymers) can only be gathered in w-space. So they cannot be compared to hisec except in strictly by profitability or lack thereof.
...
The primary industry in nulsec is supercapital/titan production. For years this has depended on mineral compression to function. But this summer mineral compression is getting the big ol' nerf bat.
Actually there is an easy comparison for moon mining, goo, reactions, and drug manufacturing. High Sec has a 0 for profitability in these areas and null/low sec have greater than 0 profitability. That is the point being made, that there are activities in null which are strictly more profitable then high sec. Yet again you decide to ignore the argument in order to make a more effective argument for yourself.
The comments for compression ignore CCP's current plans and intentions with ore compression.
"CCP Ytterbium" wrote:The solution is to improve compression ratios ... while tweaking the compressed ore volumes to make it competitive with current modules like the 425mm Railgun I for instance.
Your arguments on mining are interesting, particularly since CCP has tried to buff null sec mining. The sov war losses are often overblown, particularly for massive alliances in their deep blue territory, but at least there is an argument there.
Soldarius wrote:Now tell me again how much better nulsec industry is compared to hisec.
After your massive wall of text you still missed the original point. Urziel99 never claimed that null sec industry was better than high sec. He claimed that many other activities were. The point of the argument is to ask why null sec must also be better in industry if it has so many other good activities. I think it is a valid question, although I am feeling a bit undecided about the answer right now. For me it is obvious that null sec industry should be improved. But should null sec be better at everything? Should null sec be so much better at S&I that only they can produce many items for a profit? Perhaps the answer is yes, but you do not make a convincing argument when you ignore the issues. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:20:00 -
[1572] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:You surely know it best. I don't see how my point (make 00 industry better and more competitive, while keeping High sec intact and competitive) is bad, but you are probably right. The proposed changes do just this. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:29:00 -
[1573] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:
that is a problem, and one that is rightly being fixed. highsec will have its risk-free production, nullsec will have its riskier but more profitable production.
I still don't see why nullsec industry should be buffed. Unlimited slots on pos will already give the stations in null a massive bonus, and just how risky is it to manufacture stuff deep in goon space? Or any other large sov alliance? It must be pretty safe there for you to be able to offer out systems to rent otherwise nobody would rent there for fear of losing their investment.
Weaselior wrote:
I'm not, because I like to do industry and would like to be able to do it in nullsec, build up industrial zones, and create much better gameplay than the current "make courier contracts from jita to factory, install bazillion jobs, make courier contract back, list on market, repeat"
industry should be profitable and doable in null. large amounts of it will continue to be in highsec because that's where jita and the risk-free industry is. but at last nullsec will not be hobbled by having entire regions with less factory slots than a single highsec station and other indefensible crippling disadvantages. that will create much more vibrant gameplay in nullsec as there becomes more to do than rat and kill ratters, and take ratting and moon mining space.
If hisec industry is perceived as risk free and taking so much profit from nullsec then why not gank the afk freighters that are feeding the cycle you describe for risk free industry. The vibrant gameplay you describe as going to nullsec will be at the expense of the other areas. Will you ever transport goods into and out of null when you can just produce and sell them in situ? The gameplay comes from the need to move things around, to gather resources from disparate sources, from having to either defend your resources in null or outperform your competitors in hisec.allowing everything to be done better in null will destroy that dynamic. The large alliances in null will simply get even more rich and even more insular. Will you even bother with burn Jita when you can outperform the trade hubs locally?
The industrial zones you describe in null will kill hisec dead. How could hisec ever compete with nullsec buffed industrial zones? Destroying the dynamic between the security sectiors in this way can only be harmful to the game.
I believe that the S&I changes proposed are needed and look forward to them. I think they will benefit null as much if not more than hisec/losec already. I completely disagree that null needs S&I buffs on top of this. Hisec should remain the S&I centre to encourage the movement of materials players and goods. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
411
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:32:00 -
[1574] - Quote
Querns wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:You surely know it best. I don't see how my point (make 00 industry better and more competitive, while keeping High sec intact and competitive) is bad, but you are probably right. The proposed changes do just this.
It is not the case. If it was the case, these changes wouldn't happen. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:37:00 -
[1575] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Querns wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:You surely know it best. I don't see how my point (make 00 industry better and more competitive, while keeping High sec intact and competitive) is bad, but you are probably right. The proposed changes do just this. It is not the case. If it was the case, these changes wouldn't happen. Highsec retains its huge volume and safety advantage. Sure, some nullsec producers will be able to outcompete some markets, but the volume nullsec can put out pales in comparison to demand and highsec's current industrial output. Low-cost nullsec goods will barely impact demand at all. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14211
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:39:00 -
[1576] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Querns wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:You surely know it best. I don't see how my point (make 00 industry better and more competitive, while keeping High sec intact and competitive) is bad, but you are probably right. The proposed changes do just this. It is not the case. If it was the case, these changes wouldn't happen.
bra, when a new player wanted to research a BPO, what were they told when they asked about doing it anywhere in empire... and what did the queues look like. this is a case of things being made available in more places to everyone, and more advantageous for players who go deeper into the game. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:41:00 -
[1577] - Quote
Kadl wrote: After your massive wall of text you still missed the original point. Urziel99 never claimed that null sec industry was better than high sec. He claimed that many other activities were. The point of the argument is to ask why null sec must also be better in industry if it has so many other good activities. I think it is a valid question, although I am feeling a bit undecided about the answer right now. For me it is obvious that null sec industry should be improved. But should null sec be better at everything? Should null sec be so much better at S&I that only they can produce many items for a profit? Perhaps the answer is yes, but you do not make a convincing argument when you ignore the issues.
This is my point but put much more succint.
Many activities are already much more profitable in null and rightly so, however each area *needs* something that it is 'best' at to keep the areas competitive and provide reason to move between them. If null is buffed to be so much better at everything then hisec turns into a waiting room for new players marking time until they meet whichever alliances pre-requisites and losec becomes nothing more than a waypoint on the way to said chosen alliance.
rather than buff null in S&I I would actually leave hisec as the S&I powerhouse and buff losec in say moon goo reactions to give losec a reason to exist. As weaselior pointed out this is a game, and each area of thre game serves different playstyles. These should always have a place to exist otherwise you start to exclude groups of players. This can only be bad for the game. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:43:00 -
[1578] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I still don't see why nullsec industry should be buffed. Unlimited slots on pos will already give the stations in null a massive bonus, and just how risky is it to manufacture stuff deep in goon space? Or any other large sov alliance? It must be pretty safe there for you to be able to offer out systems to rent otherwise nobody would rent there for fear of losing their investment.
The very basic problem with this post: transport isn't free. The bigger one: nobody does any of this industry, so nobody is actually placing stuff at risk because it's a big risk, big pain in the ass, for zero benefit. It's irrelevant to renting: renters are at risk when they rat or mine but they earn enough to make that risk worth it.
Weaselior wrote: If hisec industry is perceived as risk free and taking so much profit from nullsec then why not gank the afk freighters that are feeding the cycle you describe for risk free industry. The vibrant gameplay you describe as going to nullsec will be at the expense of the other areas. Will you ever transport goods into and out of null when you can just produce and sell them in situ? The gameplay comes from the need to move things around, to gather resources from disparate sources, from having to either defend your resources in null or outperform your competitors in hisec.allowing everything to be done better in null will destroy that dynamic. The large alliances in null will simply get even more rich and even more insular. Will you even bother with burn Jita when you can outperform the trade hubs locally?
The industrial zones you describe in null will kill hisec dead. How could hisec ever compete with nullsec buffed industrial zones? Destroying the dynamic between the security sectiors in this way can only be harmful to the game.
transport isn't free
and we do gank afk freighters, we have an entire organization dedicated to it
we will continue to rely on highsec: it supplies all of the lowends, it is necessary as a trade hub for products that are regional (moongoo, invention stuff, etc), it supplies all datacores, hell most of what we need is supplied by highsec or will be traded there. hordes of wretched pubbies will continue to mine veldspar, and then compress it for export. hordes of wretched pubbies will run missions for lp, for items they will sell to us in jita
all of those things will continue to be produced and exported by highsec, even if all highsec industry becomes wrecked (which it will not, once again transport isn't free, at least once you're not in highsec and can't pay pubbies tiny amounts to move things at the pubbie's own risk) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:50:00 -
[1579] - Quote
highsec should not be more profitable than null, it should have activities that are at a different place on the risk/reward/effort spectrum
afk mining, afk mission running, trade hub .01isking, all of these things are at a very different point on the risk/reward/effort spectrum and are more 'profitable' than many nullsec activities once you factor in effort (which highseccers never do)
every time you hear someone bleat "but people can gank me in highsec and its harder to gank you in null" they're always, always, always ignoring effort. once you factor in effort the argument evaporates like a fart in the wind. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:52:00 -
[1580] - Quote
in today's news, when you put in the years-long effort to secure and defend a region, pay upkeep, run defense fleets, and you're at the keyboard when you are mining you get ganked less than some idiot afk mining in a retriever with a thirty minute egg timer
when you work out the profit per effort-time, the idiot in the afk retriever has earned massively more for each second of effort he's put in
it is simply that highseccers refuse to do this math that causes bad posts Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2739
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:53:00 -
[1581] - Quote
No, I know this is impossible because the dev's are ignoring this thread, and the null sec cartel propaganda team will fill in all the talking points on behalf of the poor overworked dev's, but I would love for a dev, or dev's, to explain what fallout they expect with these changes, short term and long term.
I assume these changes were not made just purely for the vindictive pleasure of wrecking high sec and low sec manufacturing, nor designed solely to enhance the wallets of those that control null sec station taxes. I assume these changes are being made to increase the subscription rate.
So all you dev's, who I am sure reading all the constructive feedback that phantom requested in the very first post, perhaps one of you can enlighten us on how you see the subscription rate going up with these changes? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:57:00 -
[1582] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:they're always, always, always ignoring effort. once you factor in effort the argument evaporates like a fart in the wind.
So factoring in effort...boosting S&I in nullsec will reduce the effort involved as transport (which as you say isn't free) suddenly becomes a whole lot simpler, cheaper and...less effort. So more reward for less effort. Seems somewhat wrong don't you think?
Another question. Why should anyone believe that the head of goonswarm economic warfare has anything but goons economic dominance in mind? The good of the game is most definitely not served by pushing the best of everything into one area controlled by very few groups. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:00:00 -
[1583] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: So factoring in effort...boosting S&I in nullsec will reduce the effort involved as transport (which as you say isn't free) suddenly becomes a whole lot simpler, cheaper and...less effort. So more reward for less effort. Seems somewhat wrong don't you think?
no and i don't think you really "get" how balance works
nullsec got no reward for its massive additional effort. now, effort is being curbed some and reward is being increased some. that is exactly as it should be, because the balance was off before
it was unbalanced before, it is being balanced. you seem to be puzzled by how balance works. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:07:00 -
[1584] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Malcanis wrote: Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?
Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec? Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec? I await your meager defense with baited breath.
^^^^^ This |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1497
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:08:00 -
[1585] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:No, I know this is impossible because the dev's are ignoring this thread, and the null sec cartel propaganda team will fill in all the talking points on behalf of the poor overworked dev's, but I would love for a dev, or dev's, to explain what fallout they expect with these changes, short term and long term.
I assume these changes were not made just purely for the vindictive pleasure of wrecking high sec and low sec manufacturing, nor designed solely to enhance the wallets of those that control null sec station taxes. I assume these changes are being made to increase the subscription rate.
So all you dev's, who I am sure reading all the constructive feedback that phantom requested in the very first post, perhaps one of you can enlighten us on how you see the subscription rate going up with these changes?
Did I hear filling in of talking points?
I haven't commented much in this thread because I feel like only a handful of posters even understand it to this point. So I will break it all down into a few areas. Obviously a lot more happens but they are details in the greater framework of the below.
Some industry (big invention/T2, large ships) will move to nullsec as the mechanics will allow them to be more profitable than highsec. This doesn't mean they won't be doable at all in highsec however.
Null will consolidate and increase density in economic hubs. Note, Goons had done this long ago but this will enable us to enact some plans done up years ago and further increase density.
Compression just changes form but remains an industry.
Highsec industry won't be as clustered around Jita on an unique pilot basis. However, those large operations will likely move in now as they can accept the margin compression due to scaling fees to eliminate the logistics.
If anything this results in a short term drop in subs but better long term viability for the game. I expect some % of people are going to rage about these patches.
I always wondered something about those who frame the argument as null vs highsec. Lets assume for the moment EVE was all highsec. Assuming we still played that sorta game do people not think we could do a complete takeover of say The Forge if we wanted? At some point you just have to realize you are an inferior player in a very deep game. There is nothing wrong with that. Enjoy what parts of the game you can manage to be good at.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:10:00 -
[1586] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:
no and i don't think you really "get" how balance works
I understand balance perfectly well, two sides in equilibrium upon a fulcrum...kind of like hisec and nullsec with losec as the fulcrum. Your argument that null should be better for everything allows for absolutely no balance. I'm not arguing that null should not be viable for S&I, I am however arguing and will continue to argue that it should absolutely not be better at everything in the interest of balance and balanced gameplay.
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Another question. Why should anyone believe that the head of goonswarm economic warfare has anything but goons economic dominance in mind? The good of the game is most definitely not served by pushing the best of everything into one area controlled by very few groups.
you should believe because our arguments are self-evidently correct and have been unrefuted in the years that we've been making them. they stand on their own merit and their blinding correctness, which stands in sharp contrast to the counterarguments of "but...goons!"[/quote]
Clearly they are not 'self-evidently' correct otherwise people would not question them. Please explain clearly how it is blindingly correct that one section of the game should have every advantage at the expense of every other area? Also explain how this is balanced whilst you do so.
|
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
506
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:15:00 -
[1587] - Quote
The balance is that there is risk in null-sec while there is none in high-sec. The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:20:00 -
[1588] - Quote
Aryth wrote:At some point you just have to realize you are an inferior player in a very deep game.
If those who play the game as hisec S&I folks are so inferior...why the complaints that they make so much money by doing what they do better than others?
The changes in S&I are long overdue and welcome, but improving it in null beyond the ability to perform S&I in hisec? That is just wrong. Buffing one area because players in another area can perform that career better? Completely wrong.
I'd like lots of moon goo but I have to source that from null one way or another. Fine, that's good for the game. Why then should null not have to source the best in S&I from another area? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:22:00 -
[1589] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I understand balance perfectly well, two sides in equilibrium upon a fulcrum...kind of like hisec and nullsec with losec as the fulcrum. Your argument that null should be better for everything allows for absolutely no balance. I'm not arguing that null should not be viable for S&I, I am however arguing and will continue to argue that it should absolutely not be better at everything in the interest of balance and balanced gameplay.
you do not understand balance
you asked "well effort is going down and reward is going up, isn't that a problem": it is obviously not, because before effort was way out of line with reward, and they needed to be adjusted. that's what balancing is. you said a dumb, you were wrong, and now you are trying to discuss something else to avoid admitting you were wrong
highsec has its place: the low-effort low-risk zone where you can earn the largest rewards for low-effort/low-risk activities. you don't want things balanced: you want highsec to have an absolute advantage in every respect (absolute profitability, effort, and risk), and currently highsec industry hits all three.
highsec has had an unjustifiable absolute advantage. it's important to remember that highsec is where the less adept, less adventurous players are and therefore should absolutely be the kiddy zone, but that's not relevant for this discussion: even were the highsec player even close to the equal of the nullsec player, there would be an absolute imbalance
that imbalance is being fixed. people who profited from that imbalance are whining up a storm, just like every single other balance fix ever. nano-nos-domi able to solo ten arbitrary ships? obviously imbalanced, but still got people whining up a storm. titans able to one-shot an entire grid of ships with absolutely no risk whatsoever? obviously unbalanced, but people still whined up a storm when fixed
highsec industry better in every way whatsoever than null? obviously unbalanced, but people are currently whining up a storm. water is wet, fire hot.
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Clearly they are not 'self-evidently' correct otherwise people would not question them. Please explain clearly how it is blindingly correct that one section of the game should have every advantage at the expense of every other area? Also explain how this is balanced whilst you do so.
of course they're self-evidently correct, it is merely people with a vested interest in believing untruths that dispute them, or fools.
it's hard to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it. it's also hard to make a man who doesn't understand math understand that 4^2=16, even though that is also self-evidently correct. that our arguments stand unrebutted except by this sort of nonsense despite so many people with a vested interest in trying to disprove them merely confirms our correctness
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: If those who play the game as hisec S&I folks are so inferior...why the complaints that they make so much money by doing what they do better than others?
because the game is unbalanced. i see you're finally starting to get it: inferior players, taking less risk, and putting in less effort out-earning better players taking greater risks and putting in greater effort is an obvious problem. but again, we can even pretend that highseccers are equal to nullsecers and it's still a problem! Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2742
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:23:00 -
[1590] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:No, I know this is impossible because the dev's are ignoring this thread, and the null sec cartel propaganda team will fill in all the talking points on behalf of the poor overworked dev's, but I would love for a dev, or dev's, to explain what fallout they expect with these changes, short term and long term.
I assume these changes were not made just purely for the vindictive pleasure of wrecking high sec and low sec manufacturing, nor designed solely to enhance the wallets of those that control null sec station taxes. I assume these changes are being made to increase the subscription rate.
So all you dev's, who I am sure reading all the constructive feedback that phantom requested in the very first post, perhaps one of you can enlighten us on how you see the subscription rate going up with these changes? Did I hear filling in of talking points? I haven't commented much in this thread because I feel like only a handful of posters even understand it to this point. So I will break it all down into a few areas. Obviously a lot more happens but they are details in the greater framework of the below. Some industry (big invention/T2, large ships) will move to nullsec as the mechanics will allow them to be more profitable than highsec. This doesn't mean they won't be doable at all in highsec however. Null will consolidate and increase density in economic hubs. Note, Goons had done this long ago but this will enable us to enact some plans done up years ago and further increase density. Compression just changes form but remains an industry. Highsec industry won't be as clustered around Jita on an unique pilot basis. However, those large operations will likely move in now as they can accept the margin compression due to scaling fees to eliminate the logistics. If anything this results in a short term drop in subs but better long term viability for the game. I expect some % of people are going to rage about these patches. I always wondered something about those who frame the argument as null vs highsec. Lets assume for the moment EVE was all highsec. Assuming we still played that sorta game do people not think we could do a complete takeover of say The Forge if we wanted? At some point you just have to realize you are an inferior player in a very deep game. There is nothing wrong with that. Enjoy what parts of the game you can manage to be good at.
Nice to see that all these changes benefit goons so much. It is almost like you drew them up yourselves.
And yeah, waiting for the talking points of the dev's to see how much they match up with yours. The bottom line: This is a massive nerf to high sec, a huge buff to null sec, and goons themselves state that the sub base will take a hit for the good of "long term viability".
CCP could just as easily wrecked every construct that supported the null sec cartels, had a bunch of cartel leaders quit in rage, and stated, "yes, we expect some short-term drop in subs, but overall, it improves the long-term viability of the game as now large groups of smaller organizations can try to carve out a small empire in null".
As for inferior players, well, no doubt goons have won Eve. But to suggest that people choose morality over the goon way is hardly making one "inferior" over the other.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1497
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:29:00 -
[1591] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Aryth wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:No, I know this is impossible because the dev's are ignoring this thread, and the null sec cartel propaganda team will fill in all the talking points on behalf of the poor overworked dev's, but I would love for a dev, or dev's, to explain what fallout they expect with these changes, short term and long term.
I assume these changes were not made just purely for the vindictive pleasure of wrecking high sec and low sec manufacturing, nor designed solely to enhance the wallets of those that control null sec station taxes. I assume these changes are being made to increase the subscription rate.
So all you dev's, who I am sure reading all the constructive feedback that phantom requested in the very first post, perhaps one of you can enlighten us on how you see the subscription rate going up with these changes? Did I hear filling in of talking points? I haven't commented much in this thread because I feel like only a handful of posters even understand it to this point. So I will break it all down into a few areas. Obviously a lot more happens but they are details in the greater framework of the below. Some industry (big invention/T2, large ships) will move to nullsec as the mechanics will allow them to be more profitable than highsec. This doesn't mean they won't be doable at all in highsec however. Null will consolidate and increase density in economic hubs. Note, Goons had done this long ago but this will enable us to enact some plans done up years ago and further increase density. Compression just changes form but remains an industry. Highsec industry won't be as clustered around Jita on an unique pilot basis. However, those large operations will likely move in now as they can accept the margin compression due to scaling fees to eliminate the logistics. If anything this results in a short term drop in subs but better long term viability for the game. I expect some % of people are going to rage about these patches. I always wondered something about those who frame the argument as null vs highsec. Lets assume for the moment EVE was all highsec. Assuming we still played that sorta game do people not think we could do a complete takeover of say The Forge if we wanted? At some point you just have to realize you are an inferior player in a very deep game. There is nothing wrong with that. Enjoy what parts of the game you can manage to be good at. Nice to see that all these changes benefit goons so much. It is almost like you drew them up yourselves. And yeah, waiting for the talking points of the dev's to see how much they match up with yours. The bottom line: This is a massive nerf to high sec, a huge buff to null sec, and goons themselves state that the sub base will take a hit for the good of "long term viability". CCP could just as easily wrecked every construct that supported the null sec cartels, had a bunch of cartel leaders quit in rage, and stated, "yes, we expect some short-term drop in subs, but overall, it improves the long-term viability of the game as now large groups of smaller organizations can try to carve out a small empire in null". As for inferior players, well, no doubt goons have won Eve. But to suggest that people choose morality over the goon way is hardly making one "inferior" over the other.
Perhaps you missed the part where we have taken wave after wave of nerfs to our income. Long before we received any kind of buff. Yet even though we were losing trillions in a tech nerf we lobbied the hardest for it. I know this might be hard for you to understand but you are not just inferior because you aren't successful. You are inferior because you do not care what is right for the overall game but just what is right for your chosen playstyle.
The doublewhammy of shameful. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:32:00 -
[1592] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: As for inferior players, well, no doubt goons have won Eve. But to suggest that people choose morality over the goon way is hardly making one "inferior" over the other.
in eve cowardice and laziness are always the preconditions for whatever some pubbie is claiming is "morality" that day Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:32:00 -
[1593] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:The balance is that there is risk in null-sec while there is none in high-sec.
risk is not the be all and end all. It is simply something requiring effort to manage (or the acceptance of the losses with respect to the expected gains). Deep inside goon territory just how much risk is there in reality? You will be able to cover the gates into systems and have advance warning of intruders. No intruders? Then move your goods around with impunity.
Am I expected to believe that fuel for your control towers costs you a fortune? Surely with the highest output of PI resources and the ice fields you can lock down and mine out this shouldn't be a problem? When you have unlimited slots per station you will also have far fewer stations to defend if you choose so.
If I flew to goons null I would be at grave risk for not being blue to you, if I were blue? Suddenly a huge chunk of that risk is mitigated. I'm not complaining about this as you have carved out and controlled this space, but to plead poverty based on risk vs reward? If it was so hard there how do you control so much space? How do you afford it?
The risk vs reward idea doesn't fly in this case. Reducing the effort required to make even more isk in null is simply absurd and I very much hope that doesn't happen (and that is *all* of null, not an anti-goons statement). |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:34:00 -
[1594] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Dramaticus wrote:The balance is that there is risk in null-sec while there is none in high-sec. risk is not the be all and end all. It is simply something requiring effort to manage (or the acceptance of the losses with respect to the expected gains). Deep inside goon territory just how much risk is there in reality? You will be able to cover the gates into systems and have advance warning of intruders. No intruders? Then move your goods around with impunity.
oh lookie here:
Weaselior wrote:highsec should not be more profitable than null, it should have activities that are at a different place on the risk/reward/effort spectrum
afk mining, afk mission running, trade hub .01isking, all of these things are at a very different point on the risk/reward/effort spectrum and are more 'profitable' than many nullsec activities once you factor in effort (which highseccers never do)
every time you hear someone bleat "but people can gank me in highsec and its harder to gank you in null" they're always, always, always ignoring effort. once you factor in effort the argument evaporates like a fart in the wind.
Weaselior wrote:in today's news, when you put in the years-long effort to secure and defend a region, pay upkeep, run defense fleets, and you're at the keyboard when you are mining you get ganked less than some idiot afk mining in a retriever with a thirty minute egg timer
when you work out the profit per effort-time, the idiot in the afk retriever has earned massively more for each second of effort he's put in
it is simply that highseccers refuse to do this math that causes bad posts
Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:37:00 -
[1595] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Dramaticus wrote:The balance is that there is risk in null-sec while there is none in high-sec. Am I expected to believe that fuel for your control towers costs you a fortune? Surely with the highest output of PI resources and the ice fields you can lock down and mine out this shouldn't be a problem? When you have unlimited slots per station you will also have far fewer stations to defend if you choose so. Our fuel costs the same as it costs everyone else, because we buy it in Jita. Furthermore, there aren't enough slots available in our empire to produce the amount of fuel that we need.
What, do you think we enslave our line members to provide raw materials for pos fuel? This is not a thing we do.
It is amusing, however, to have random, unaffiliated folks walk in and describe how things work in nullsec, and in particular, in our organization, when they've clearly never spent a day in either. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:38:00 -
[1596] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Am I expected to believe that fuel for your control towers costs you a fortune? Surely with the highest output of PI resources and the ice fields you can lock down and mine out this shouldn't be a problem? When you have unlimited slots per station you will also have far fewer stations to defend if you choose so.
i also can't pass up the opportunity to quote a highsec pubbie unironically arguing "the things i mine myself are free" Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
638
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 18:50:00 -
[1597] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh, you keep positing that someone is saying nulsec should be better at everything. Then going on how that isn't balanced.
As it stands now, nulsec is absolute crap for industry. There is literally no reason to do anything in nulsec except rat, moon mine, and build supers.
Because of the risks and effort required, very little resource harvesting gets done. Moons because guess what? A mechanical requirement. Boosters? Another mechanical requirement. Hybrid Polymers? Another mechanical requirement. Want to build supers or titans? You must own sov because Dominion sov mechanics say you have to, despite common sense saying "Why do I have to plant a flag to build a ship?" Why can't I build in Antarctica if I want to?
I have lived in nulsec continuously for 5 years. I can promise you, very little of its available industrial capacity is ever being used. Factories lay abandoned and empty. Refineries are dormant and cold. No one wants to do those activities because the risk outweighs the rewards.
Is mining worth it in nulsec? Sure. ABCs and Dark Glitter litter nulsec. We could easily crush all demand in hisec for if we could safely harvest even a fraction of what nulsec could provide. But because of the risk, costs, and immense effort of moving it all from nulsec, it will never happen.
Balance isn't about having item X in region A and item Y in region B, and then saying "Let there be balance!" Its about effort/risk vs reward.
You want to throw PvE into the balance equation? Okay. Just look at the isk generated by running level 4 missions. It is competitive with PvE in nulsec and has far less risk. Where do you think all those blinged-out navy faction battleships come from?
But pirate faction battleships come from nulsec and are worth more! Yes they are. Not because they are only available from high-end exploration plexes and pirate NPC missions. But because the people that bring them in from nulsec take greater risks and put in more effort to get them. This is balance.
What about carrier ratting? No, you can't do it in hisec. But those that do it in nul are taking greater risks. Every blops pilot in the game wants to hotdrop a ratting carrier. The carrier pilot's reward for the greater risk is greater income. Balance is maintained. You want lower risk, you get lower income. Hell, it isn't even any more effort than ratting in a T1 BS. Its a pure risk vs reward issue.
I suppose the hisec version of carrier ratting might be station trading. Ask around. What is the single most profitable action in Eve from a risk+effort vs reward standpoint? Many many players will say either level 4 missions in a T1 BS or station trading.
Hisec is great for everything that can be done there, and it is very low risk. Nulsec is much higher risk. So, yes, whatever you can do out in nulsec should generate a proportionately higher return on investment compared to hisec.
And now, you will have unlimited factory slots. Holy crap. UNLIMITED! The only thing you have to worry about is is it worth it to pay the fee in a congested system, put up a POS and pay a flat rate per hour, or go to a less crowded station? Oh, that's right! No more faction standings requirement! And look at how many factory slots you have!
In nulsec, we don't have that option. We can put one station in a system and we have to choose which type. Do we want a refinery, a factory, an office station, or a research station? We get to choose one and only one, and then we are stuck with it forever.
You want to compare balance? Tribal Band dropped 4 stations in Period Basis while we owned it. We paid for every TCU, IHUB, SBU, station upgrade, capital ship assembly array, jump bridge, cynosural field jammer, pirate detection array, and every other "advantage" that we had through hard work and effort, and we did it while we had every hostile entity From NPC Fountain, Delve, Stain, and Stainwagon in Paragon Soul breathing down our necks.
And to make it clear, there were a lot of us that really appreciated the effort our allies went through to get us that space. Hell, I even appreciate the pizza guys that came down from Delve to re-educate the brothers.
How much isk and effort did anyone in hisec have to spend to enjoy the perfect refineries with sub-par skills, level 4 missions, multiple stations per system with hundreds of manufacturing and research slots and dozens of offices in almost every system, gate guns, station guns, faction police, no bombs, no bubbles, and the ultimate mother-lode of all protection services, CONCORD?
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/The_Forge http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Period_Basis
Do those maps looked balanced to you?
If you want to live in hisec, fine. I can't stop you. But the next time you want to cry about how hisec is getting nerfed and how unbalanced the game is becoming towards nulsec, look at what you have, then look at what we have, and then ask yourself what have I done to deserve all this absolutely awesome space?
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 18:51:00 -
[1598] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Am I expected to believe that fuel for your control towers costs you a fortune? Surely with the highest output of PI resources and the ice fields you can lock down and mine out this shouldn't be a problem? When you have unlimited slots per station you will also have far fewer stations to defend if you choose so.
i also can't pass up the opportunity to quote a highsec pubbie unironically arguing "the things i mine myself are free"
Where did I say they were free? I said you can gather the materials from PI (i.e. make the effort to do so...not 'free'). Locking down an ice filed to mine it out? Takes effort to hold the system and effort to mine the field whilst killing the rats that show up. Again not 'free'
I raised the question as to why you don't produce them yourself. I make fuel blocks and know it isn't that difficult. If you have the goods to hand and the build slots available (which you may or may not have) then it is a simple process. After the summer changes you will have unlimited build slots. I would be very surprised if you didn't make the absolute best use of that change.
Also please explain the term 'pubbie' as if it is an insult I'd at least like to know exactly how it is supposed to be |
Castles
Sovereign Power Company
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 18:52:00 -
[1599] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Am I expected to believe that fuel for your control towers costs you a fortune? Surely with the highest output of PI resources and the ice fields you can lock down and mine out this shouldn't be a problem? When you have unlimited slots per station you will also have far fewer stations to defend if you choose so.
i also can't pass up the opportunity to quote a highsec pubbie unironically arguing "the things i mine myself are free"
When he says that they might cost you a fortune, he is implying that you are paying a large percentage over the fair market value, presumably because you don't have enough local resources to draw from in order to keep up with demand.
Everything looks like a nail when you're a hammer. Think, Weaselior, before you post. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
1107
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:02:00 -
[1600] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:If you want to live in hisec, fine. I can't stop you. But the next time you want to cry about how hisec is getting nerfed and how unbalanced the game is becoming towards nulsec, look at what you have, then look at what we have, and then ask yourself what have I done to deserve all this absolutely awesome space?
On top of all that, I don't understand where the certainty comes from that high sec is even taking a nerf. A reconfiguration, sure, and those are painful, but the way it looks to settle out should work out pretty well, especially for new entrants. Something more diverse than "Jita or GTFO" could, in practice, constitute a buff to high sec--maybe not ISK-wise, but again in terms of accessibility to new and small-time industry players.
I think the apparent lack of any buff to null sec logistics pretty much guarantees that much of null sec's production will be for its own local consumption, and any exports will probably continue to land in Jita, leaving the rest of high sec to high sec producers. So, probably a net buff to traders, speculators and space truckers as well. With some null sec production leaving the Jita area, and with 425mm Railgun manufacturing going away, there should be reduced pressure on Jita-adjacent production facilities, which means lower surcharges.
More to the point, we're still 4 dev blogs away from knowing what the first set of changes to industry even are. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:15:00 -
[1601] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Weaselior wrote: i also can't pass up the opportunity to quote a highsec pubbie unironically arguing "the things i mine myself are free"
Where did I say they were free? I said you can gather the materials from PI (i.e. make the effort to do so...not 'free'). Locking down an ice filed to mine it out? Takes effort to hold the system and effort to mine the field whilst killing the rats that show up. Again not 'free' I raised the question as to why you don't produce them yourself. I make fuel blocks and know it isn't that difficult. If you have the goods to hand and the build slots available (which you may or may not have) then it is a simple process. After the summer changes you will have unlimited build slots. I would be very surprised if you didn't make the absolute best use of that change. Where in this adorable vignette does the ice miner get paid? Where does the PI guy get paid? Those people don't mine for the benefit of the alliance alone -- they want money for their efforts, or they're not going to do it. Furthermore, anyone doing this is under no coercion to sell to the alliance even IF it is buying -- if our prices aren't competitive with Jita minus JF fees, it doesn't go to us.
If you think that any sane individual would agree to be held to any of those demands, you're part of a lengthy object lesson in why we have nullsec, and you don't. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
639
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:28:00 -
[1602] - Quote
For the record, there are 358 50% refineries in the Forge alone.
In all of nulsec, there are 487. They are all Conquerable Outposts or NPC stations, rather than Player-Built Stations. This does not include any 50% player built stations. But those are few and far between because guess what, with 40% refinery, level 4 specialty skills and a 1% implant, you could get perfect refine/reprocessing. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:37:00 -
[1603] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh, you keep positing that someone is saying nulsec should be better at everything. Then going on how that isn't balanced.
As it stands now, nulsec is absolute crap for industry.
...
Is mining worth it in nulsec? Sure. ABCs and Dark Glitter litter nulsec. We could easily crush all demand in hisec for if we could safely harvest even a fraction of what nulsec could provide. But because of the risk, costs, and immense effort of moving it all from nulsec, it will never happen.
Balance isn't about having item X in region A and item Y in region B, and then saying "Let there be balance!" Its about effort/risk vs reward.
You want to throw PvE into the balance equation? Okay. Just look at the isk generated by running level 4 missions. It is competitive with PvE in nulsec and has far less risk. Where do you think all those blinged-out navy faction battleships come from?
What about carrier ratting? No, you can't do it in hisec. But those that do it in nul are taking greater risks. Every blops pilot in the game wants to hotdrop a ratting carrier. The carrier pilot's reward for the greater risk is greater income. Balance is maintained. You want lower risk, you get lower income. Hell, it isn't even any more effort than ratting in a T1 BS. Its a pure risk vs reward issue.
...
Hisec is great for everything that can be done there, and it is very low risk. Nulsec is much higher risk. So, yes, whatever you can do out in nulsec should generate a proportionately higher return on investment compared to hisec.
And now, you will have unlimited factory slots. Holy crap. UNLIMITED! The only thing you have to worry about is is it worth it to pay the fee in a congested system, put up a POS and pay a flat rate per hour, or go to a less crowded station? Oh, that's right! No more faction standings requirement! And look at how many factory slots you have!
In nulsec, we don't have that option. We can put one station in a system and we have to choose which type. Do we want a refinery, a factory, an office station, or a research station? We get to choose one and only one, and then we are stuck with it forever.
...
How much isk and effort did anyone in hisec have to spend to enjoy the perfect refineries with sub-par skills, level 4 missions, multiple stations per system with hundreds of manufacturing and research slots and dozens of offices in almost every system, gate guns, station guns, faction police, no bombs, no bubbles, and the ultimate mother-lode of all protection services, CONCORD?
...
If you want to live in hisec, fine. I can't stop you. But the next time you want to cry about how hisec is getting nerfed and how unbalanced the game is becoming towards nulsec, look at what you have, then look at what we have, and then ask yourself what have I done to deserve all this absolutely awesome space?
Thanks for the detailed reply which clarifies many things for me. I have already stated that if nulsec industry is not viable it should be made so and I have no issue with that. I have on many occasions posted against the ability to farm any kind of mission, it annoys me that people can do so and the eve survival can even exist. What is the point of a mission where you can go AFK?
The station issue of single type per system I didn't know about, I was under the impression that the moons within the system could provide whichever service was required by placing online refineries, labs, reactors, whatevers. That is an issue with station viability in null rather than an advantage that hisec has. It is my understanding that with the new POS S&I system the stations in every system will have the same capabilities and no slot limits upon them. This will benefit all systems equally.
In terms of refining I have no argument with the skill changes ( and I think it was probably 1 month to 6 weeks to get the skills for perfect refining plus about 2 months grinding standings). It made no sense for the refining skills to have little value above a certain level.
As for CONCORD they are a punishment service not a protection. If someone wants to kill you in hisec they just bring enough gank fit ship to do the required damage in the required time. Concord cannot stop them, only destroy them afterwards by which time it is too late for the target. If my understanding is incorrect here please do explain why.
I live in hisec because it suits me to do so for now. If my available time for the game drops then I will simply adapt my skills and activities to compensate. Most of my goods however come from regular jaunts to losec and I have no aversion to risk or effort. Missions bore me, station trading would bore me to tears. I am learning to carry out every career within Eve as and when the opportunity arises. I welcome the S&I changes as it gives me something new to learn and adapt to. I certainly don't cry about hisec being nerfed since I simply look for the opportunities that any change brings for me in my current position and make the best of it. Ultimately whether null has an S&I buff or not will not affect me as I will simply work around any changes.
I raised the question as to *why* null should be better for everything and this i still a valid question. I have not been swayed by the comments and responses here that this is a good thing for the game. Once someone moves to null sec and can enjoy every career there for greater reward why would they ever return to the other areas of space? They would have no need or reason. Hisec folks are already treated as second class citizens by many people. This is not a good way to persuade people to stay in the game after trial. I would much prefer there to be actual reasons to use each area of space for its particular advantage, and likewise there to be reasons for people to travel between the regions. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1120
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:39:00 -
[1604] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:For the record, there are 358 50% refineries in the Forge alone.
In all of nulsec, there are 487. They are all Conquerable Outposts or NPC stations, rather than Player-Built Stations. This does not include any 50% player built stations. But those are few and far between because guess what, with 40% refinery, level 4 specialty skills and a 1% implant, you could get perfect refine/reprocessing. Not that I'm against the changes being proposed, but what you said amounts to admitting you marginalized the value of 50% refining, which is in no way highsec's fault. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
411
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:43:00 -
[1605] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:How much isk and effort did anyone in hisec have to spend to enjoy the perfect refineries with sub-par skills, level 4 missions, multiple stations per system with hundreds of manufacturing and research slots and dozens of offices in almost every system, gate guns, station guns, faction police, no bombs, no bubbles, and the ultimate mother-lode of all protection services, CONCORD?
Then complain to CCP that they should have fixed that earlier. I never understood why they put such terrible stations into the game in the first place or at least have upgraded them long ago. CONCORD exists in 00 sec. But as it is player driven, you actually have to be in fleets to respond to threats.
You also compare the wrong regions. Instead of the least busy 00 region and the busiest region in the game you should have compared the either busiest regions of High sec and 00 sec (which is an entirely different region and would make The Forge look less extreme.) or the least busy regions, where High sec and such 00 regions look very much alike.
Querns wrote:Where in this adorable vignette does the ice miner get paid? Where does the PI guy get paid? Those people don't mine for the benefit of the alliance alone -- they want money for their efforts, or they're not going to do it. Furthermore, anyone doing this is under no coercion to sell to the alliance even IF it is buying -- if our prices aren't competitive with Jita minus JF fees, it doesn't go to us.
If you think that any sane individual would agree to be held to any of those demands, you're part of a lengthy object lesson in why we have nullsec, and you don't.
Sure, they want money, and you can give them money. Even Jita prices. And it would still be cheaper and less effort for you, since you don't have to ferry all the stuff from Jita to 00 sec - you only have to ferry it around in 00 sec with your JBs.
Soldarius wrote: For the record, there are 358 50% refineries in the Forge alone.
In all of nulsec, there are 487. They are all Conquerable Outposts or NPC stations, rather than Player-Built Stations. This does not include any 50% player built stations. But those are few and far between because guess what, with 40% refinery, level 4 specialty skills and a 1% implant, you could get perfect refine/reprocessing.
Very interesting numbers. And now we level the game on the 00 sec numbers where player were and still are too lazy to build proper outposts? Or where players failed to demand better stations to make industry more worthwhile a long time ago? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:51:00 -
[1606] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Querns wrote:Where in this adorable vignette does the ice miner get paid? Where does the PI guy get paid? Those people don't mine for the benefit of the alliance alone -- they want money for their efforts, or they're not going to do it. Furthermore, anyone doing this is under no coercion to sell to the alliance even IF it is buying -- if our prices aren't competitive with Jita minus JF fees, it doesn't go to us.
If you think that any sane individual would agree to be held to any of those demands, you're part of a lengthy object lesson in why we have nullsec, and you don't. Sure, they want money, and you can give them money. Even Jita prices. And it would still be cheaper and less effort for you, since you don't have to ferry all the stuff from Jita to 00 sec - you only have to ferry it around in 00 sec with your JBs. If you think any appreciable bulk of goods goes through jump bridges in freighters, you're dreaming. Jump bridges are one-per-system now, which means those freighters have to take gates. All goods are moved to, from, and in between nullsec systems via Jump Freighter.
The funny thing about Jump Freighters is that they aren't more work to go to Jita than they are to go to a nullsec market hub. Given the choice between an anemic nullsec market hub and Jita, which would you choose? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
411
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:05:00 -
[1607] - Quote
Querns wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Querns wrote:Where in this adorable vignette does the ice miner get paid? Where does the PI guy get paid? Those people don't mine for the benefit of the alliance alone -- they want money for their efforts, or they're not going to do it. Furthermore, anyone doing this is under no coercion to sell to the alliance even IF it is buying -- if our prices aren't competitive with Jita minus JF fees, it doesn't go to us.
If you think that any sane individual would agree to be held to any of those demands, you're part of a lengthy object lesson in why we have nullsec, and you don't. Sure, they want money, and you can give them money. Even Jita prices. And it would still be cheaper and less effort for you, since you don't have to ferry all the stuff from Jita to 00 sec - you only have to ferry it around in 00 sec with your JBs. If you think any appreciable bulk of goods goes through jump bridges in freighters, you're dreaming. Jump bridges are one-per-system now, which means those freighters have to take gates. All goods are moved to, from, and in between nullsec systems via Jump Freighter. The funny thing about Jump Freighters is that they aren't more work to go to Jita than they are to go to a nullsec market hub. Given the choice between an anemic nullsec market hub and Jita, which would you choose?
Right, you naturally use the JF. Unless you have set up a JB specifically for such a purpose, which is what I would do for a couple of systems to make mining this ice easier.
Unfortunately I would chose Jita as well. But why is the 00 market hub anemic to begin with? Is it really that easy to jump stuff from Jita to Tenal or Period Basis all the time? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:10:00 -
[1608] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Very interesting numbers. And now we level the game on the 00 sec numbers where player were and still are too lazy to build proper outposts? Or where players failed to demand better stations to make industry more worthwhile a long time ago? the standard factory station in highsec is a 50 slot 50% refinery and there are like eight per system in most factory systems in highsec
that is literally impossible to build in nullsec (you can get 50 slots in a refinery OR 50% refines), and you are limited to one station per system
don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time
edit: apparently not:
Rivr Luzade wrote: Right, you naturally use the JF. Unless you have set up a JB specifically for such a purpose, which is what I would do for a couple of systems to make mining this ice easier.
you would never ever use the jump bridge and freighter instead of a jump freighter because it's slower and much more vulnerable
freighters do not go through jump bridges in nullsec except to get into jammed systems. the 'cant cut it in 0.0 crew' has proven why yet again Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
414
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:17:00 -
[1609] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: Unfortunately I would chose Jita as well. But why is the 00 market hub anemic to begin with? Is it really that easy to jump stuff from Jita to Tenal or Period Basis all the time?
It has to do with the fact that a lot of materials are only available in certain regions. For example, you can't get most datacores in any one particular area of nullsec (and the kinds you do get are only for a sharply limited set of T2 items,) you can't get all moon minerals in any one particular area (r32s are regional,) ice is regional, drug gas is regional (this is a crappy example but it has still been relevant to the maybe dozen people in 10 years of eve who have ever made drugs.)
All these goods have to be imported. Since you have to import the materials, it makes a whole lot more sense to just import the finished goods, which have been assembled by highsec, with its superior logistics, availability, facilities, and lower risk, and the ability to outsource the taking of the very risk you do endure via properly collateralized public courier contract.
Giving nullsec a slight leg up against the norm gives us a chance to try and claw out some of that for ourselves, rather than be beholden to highsec for everything. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
411
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:27:00 -
[1610] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:the standard factory station in highsec is a 50 slot 50% refinery and there are like eight per system in most factory systems in highsec
that is literally impossible to build in nullsec (you can get 50 slots in a refinery OR 50% refines), and you are limited to one station per system
I am not sure which systems you are talking about, but it must be in Caldari space. I don't know a lot of systems sought of Kaaputenen with that many stations and these specifications.
As said, it boggles my mind why CCP hasn't changed at least the slots and stats of 00 outpost earlier to make them competitive with High sec stations. |
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
14213
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:51:00 -
[1611] - Quote
because there's like, 2 people working on mechanics changes President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
411
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:53:00 -
[1612] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:because there's like, 2 people working on mechanics changes
It's been how many years now that the inferiority of 00 sec outposts is known?
But you are right ... CCP had to add incursions, NEX, Captains Quarters, more NEX, ship skins, and so on before fixing that. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1497
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:57:00 -
[1613] - Quote
The best part of this thread is when people admit they don't know the first thing about nullsec mechanics. After having been arguing the merits of a change that impacts null and highsec. If you want to be successful in this game or at least successful at arguing the mechanics within it, perhaps it might be useful to actually know mechanics beyond your small corner of the game.
Shocking concept I know. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:04:00 -
[1614] - Quote
Nah, the best bit is finding out what the new changes will be, the rest is banter and waffle |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:06:00 -
[1615] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Rain6637 wrote:because there's like, 2 people working on mechanics changes It's been how many years now that the inferiority of 00 sec outposts is known? But you are right ... CCP had to add incursions, NEX, Captains Quarters, more NEX, ship skins, and so on before fixing that. why do you think we've been bitching about it for years Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
411
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:10:00 -
[1616] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Rain6637 wrote:because there's like, 2 people working on mechanics changes It's been how many years now that the inferiority of 00 sec outposts is known? But you are right ... CCP had to add incursions, NEX, Captains Quarters, more NEX, ship skins, and so on before fixing that. why do you think we've been bitching about it for years
That is the problem... but suddenly it is a hot topic and everyone wants changes that could and should have been made a lot earlier. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1497
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:13:00 -
[1617] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Nah, the best bit is finding out what the new changes will be, the rest is banter and waffle
You will find it far less exciting when you have already theorycrafted every possible solution years in advance. I guess it just turns into relief then. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1120
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:15:00 -
[1618] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Weaselior wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Rain6637 wrote:because there's like, 2 people working on mechanics changes It's been how many years now that the inferiority of 00 sec outposts is known? But you are right ... CCP had to add incursions, NEX, Captains Quarters, more NEX, ship skins, and so on before fixing that. why do you think we've been bitching about it for years That is the problem... but suddenly it is a hot topic and everyone wants changes that could and should have been made a lot earlier. It's been a topic of discussion for just about every security band based argument for years. It's not just suddenly coming up. I've seen and participated in many of them, more than enough to know it's has for a long time been a hot topic.
What we have here is a number of mostly non-participants to the long term discussion suddenly throwing their words around now that they are being faced with an impending change. |
The Alienator
Quality Re-Assurance
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:33:00 -
[1619] - Quote
I'm going to preface this by getting a few points out there about my own experience in the game, in hopes of avoiding the "nullsec is awesome and elite and everyone else are scaredy-noobs" trolls.
I've been playing the game since late 2008. I have five active subscriptions which I actually PAY for.
I have lived and pewed in nullsec, lowsec & w-space for extended periods (about a year each). I've done FW. I've built & researched almost everything. I've done trade, industry, mining, exploration, etc.. I was a ninja-salvager with Suddenly Ninjas for years. Until recently I was part of Marmite (largely highsec PvP). I've ganked and been ganked. I've infiltrated corps and had corps infiltrated. I've even taken "a break" and once left the game completely for half a year. I have done it all, enjoyed most of it, made good friends and given CCP a LOT of money in exchange for that.
Change happens. I've seen it countless times. Sometimes I benefited from the changes, sometimes I lost huge amounts of ISK. I've lucked into situations where changes saved me months of skill training, and have trained alts for specific purposes only to have a change render months of training useless for my purpose. Sometimes change is great. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. :)
These industry changes, though, are a symptom of a larger issue that has been making Eve much less fun for me over the last few years.
Mabrick captures it well: Building Better Worlds for Whom? Though I completely disagree with his idea that we should stop ganking in highsec, his other points are IMHO bang-on.
Ultimately it comes down the the fact that CCP has been gradually and relentlessly trying to FORCE me to play in nullsec, partially through efforts to make highsec safer & more new-player-friendly (let's nerf ninja salvaging and add safeties to our ships). These industry changes, however, won't help drive new subs and will probably have the opposite impact by making production in highsec very low-profit (if profitable at all). CCP has been clear that they want to promote "risk vs reward" which really means "let's force experienced players to nullsec". What CCP is doing is making it impossible for me to choose to play this "sandbox" game in a way that I enjoy. They are (and have been, slowly over time) eliminating my options and effectively forcing me to play the way THEY want me to, or quit. That sucks. Look at Skyrim's success. Look at Civilization. Look at Eve's early success... Now look at *insert game with strict linear story-line here*. Remember it? No? Because they fail! People like choice and hate being forced into things. We get enough of that in RL.
I've done nullsec & IMHO it sucks. If I wanted to be part of some mega-organization with a management structure driven by 20-somethings with power/self-esteem issues, I'd quit the game and spend my free time at work instead. I didn't join Eve to have that experience. I didn't join Eve to pay "rent" to a mega-corp for the privilege of getting access to a third-rate system with an empty local or to spend 12 hours in a TiDi slow-mo battle. I joined Eve to be my own person - I joined to explore a sandbox, make my own decisions, build relationships, make stuff, buy stuff, sell stuff, profit and to destroy other peoples stuff. I've been to nullsec. I've got the t-shirt. It's not fun for me.
And that's ok. There are lots of people out there that have a different opinion of nullsec. It's their choice to live and play in nullsec. It's my choice to live in highsec and make forays into low, null and w-space when I want to. That's the key word here, CHOICE. Changes like this and CCP's 'risk vs reward' piling-on of benefits for nullsec play, have gotten ridiculous. I thought it was bad when they led all those lambs to slaughter during that live-event a few months ago, but it just doesn't stop. And nullsec is not nearly as "risky" as some like to claim. Nullsec can be very very dull and in some instances safer than highsec (depending on how/where you play).
If it would drive new subs I could buy into changes like this (or at least chalk it up to 's*** happens, get over it'), but these changes aren't about that. They're aimed squarely at FORCING experienced players into null.
Three of my accounts are focused on the highsec industry value-chain I've built and love managing. I can pick it up when I have a few spare minutes (unlike PvP, which I only do when I have time to do it properly). I have 100+ billion invested in BPO's, towers, mining ships, stock & transport ships but even without the details I can see that the only way to maintain these activities profitably is to move to null. Not by choice, but as a direct result of the changes CCP is proposing. Since I don't enjoy doing industry in nullsec my choices come down to maintaining an unprofitable/borderline business in highsec or leaving the business and focusing on other stuff.
I'm resigned to leaving the business - my free time is too valuable (cost & risk vs reward).
When the game time runs out on those three industry-focused accounts they won't be renewed. I've stopped training my industry and transport toons and am breeding toons on those accounts for sale. The stations are on the market. The BPO's will be researched until after the summer changes, then sold.
I'm not rage-quitting - I'm keeping 2 accounts for PvP - but Eve no longer gets my (frequent) casual game time. In the last week alone I've bought The Stick of Truth, Total War and other games. They give me CHOICES and are a really fun way to spend 30-60 minutes a day.
Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
639
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:41:00 -
[1620] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Soldarius wrote:How much isk and effort did anyone in hisec have to spend to enjoy the perfect refineries with sub-par skills, level 4 missions, multiple stations per system with hundreds of manufacturing and research slots and dozens of offices in almost every system, gate guns, station guns, faction police, no bombs, no bubbles, and the ultimate mother-lode of all protection services, CONCORD? Then complain to CCP that they should have fixed that earlier. I never understood why they put such terrible stations into the game in the first place or at least have upgraded them long ago. CONCORD exists in 00 sec. But as it is player driven, you actually have to be in fleets to respond to threats.
We have, and apparently they have listened as all stations are getting a rebalance. CONCORD does not exist in nulsec in any way, shape, or form. Players do not have Superman ships that web, paint, jam, damp, neut, tracking disrupt, scram, and deal 10kdps all at once. Nor do players insta-spawn on site in infinite numbers.
Quote:You also compare the wrong regions. Instead of the least busy 00 region and the busiest region in the game you should have compared the either busiest regions of High sec and 00 sec (which is an entirely different region and would make The Forge look less extreme. ) or the least busy regions, where High sec and such 00 regions look very much alike.
I suppose expecting you to know just how busy Period Basis was over the course of 2012/2013 was expecting too much. It was home to the at one point over 5000 nerd strong alliance called Tribal Band, a pet and best brosef of TEST for a full year. It was very busy. Number of stations does not equal activity level. HIX4 was the market hub. While not Jita-level busy, it was often Amarr-level busy. The comparison was apt, if perhaps unknown to you.
Quote:Soldarius wrote: For the record, there are 358 50% refineries in the Forge alone.
In all of nulsec, there are 487. They are all Conquerable Outposts or NPC stations, rather than Player-Built Stations. This does not include any 50% player built stations. But those are few and far between because guess what, with 40% refinery, level 4 specialty skills and a 1% implant, you could get perfect refine/reprocessing.
Very interesting numbers. And now we level the game on the 00 sec numbers where player were and still are too lazy to build proper outposts? Or where players failed to demand better stations to make industry more worthwhile a long time ago? For the records: It is entirely the players fault that the 00 sec station landscape is what it is at the moment. But instead of fixing that, other areas where players actually cannot influence things (even though they are there plentiful) are changed. Very reasonable.
For the record (<--ftfy): You are so ignorant its hard to believe. I'm going to start calling you "W" because I'm sure you think we all own SUVs (supercaps) and can simply tote our entire lives around every time Hurricane Katrina (goons/PL/whoever) comes along and erases our city (sov).
We don't get to build "proper" outposts. We can only use the tools that CCP has given us. They gave us crap. So that is what we used. Meanwhile up in hisec, you got everything you could ever need at absolutely zero cost. Welcome to the real world, W.
Imagine dropping 100 hisec POCO gantries at once and you might have some idea of the scales we're talking about. Then, like the POCOs, you have to put more into them to actually get the station. Then you do it again to upgrade one aspect of your station. Then you do it again. And then you can do it again for an IHUB. Then you do it again for every stupid upgrade. A level 5 Pirate Entrapment Upgrade require a god-damned freighter to move. Risk, man. Risk!
Oh, yeah. And then some generic afk cloaker decides he want to deny your isk-generation activities thereby rendering billions in upgrades and all the effort we put into getting them in place absolutely useless, by the simple fact of his presence in local. (Valid game-play imo so don't even go there, I've done it myself.)
You, sir, have no concept of balance. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:43:00 -
[1621] - Quote
The Alienator wrote:Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad. your entire post can be summarized as "you can't have rewards in nullsec, because I am in highsec!"
a player now who wishes to do industry must be in highsec. post-patch, a player faces a choice with tradeoffs, and can be in either null or highsec
you are whining up a storm over this new choice and trying to paint it as a choice elimination. it's not, you're just whining because highsec industry is no longer better in every way than 0.0 Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:49:00 -
[1622] - Quote
The Alienator wrote:-snip to save space-
Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad.
Nail---->Head.
For those that dont want to read everything he just wrote:
CCP you can smack me with the nerf bat till I'm stupid(or just being stupid) and put a carrot the size of god in null and I still wont play there. I'll just spend less time in your game. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:51:00 -
[1623] - Quote
Aeonidis wrote: CCP you can smack me with the nerf bat till I'm stupid(or just being stupid) and put a carrot the size of god in null and I still wont play there. I'll just spend less time in your game.
carrots don't force you to do anything, besides whine on forums, and ccp clearly doesn't need to smack you with anything Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:03:00 -
[1624] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Aeonidis wrote: CCP you can smack me with the nerf bat till I'm stupid(or just being stupid) and put a carrot the size of god in null and I still wont play there. I'll just spend less time in your game.
carrots don't force you to do anything, besides whine on forums, and ccp clearly doesn't need to smack you with anything
your barking up the wrong tree man I agree with these changes. I only wish they had been in place 4 years ago when I started this game and maybe I would have had more fun over those last 4 years with my 1 account and 2 hours a night instead of trying to compete with ppl that are plexing 10 accounts and still living in high sec. for the most part ppl like me are going to win and ppl like you are going to win. I dont really see the problem unless your living in high sec and trying to arm a 2000 man alliance these changes seem pretty good to me. xcept mineral compression, i did kinda like that. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:04:00 -
[1625] - Quote
I have the feeling, this turns into a "grr null" vs. "grr hisec" trench warfare... Although i am heavily invested in highsec industry around T2 production, i really welcome the basic ideas behind the proposed changes (and unfortunately agree with a good portion of the goony statements). But (and that's a freakin huge BUT) on the other hand, until CCP provides as actual hard numbers, i keep being afraid, because this has a damn big potential on backfiring in epic ways if implemented poorly...
Therefore i dearly hope, that the next blogs on the list get out soon (without the Gäó), so we can have a knowledgable discussion instead of the bitching about why a certain area of space is inferior/superior/poorer/lamer/safer/whatsoeva
So please CCP, throw out more information! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:05:00 -
[1626] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:I have the feeling, this turns into a "grr null" vs. "grr hisec" trench warfare... Although i am heavily invested in highsec industry around T2 production, i really welcome the basic ideas behind the proposed changes (and unfortunately agree with a good portion of the goony statements). But (and that's a freakin huge BUT) on the other hand, until CCP provides as actual hard numbers, i keep being afraid, because this has a damn big potential on backfiring in epic ways if implemented poorly...
Therefore i dearly hope, that the next blogs on the list get out soon (without the Gäó), so we can have a knowledgable discussion instead of the bitching about why a certain area of space is inferior/superior/poorer/lamer/safer/whatsoeva
So please CCP, throw out more information! yeah i think we can all agree on MAKE WITH THE REST OF THE BLOGS AAAUGH Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:12:00 -
[1627] - Quote
That I do agree entirely on... |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7027
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:13:00 -
[1628] - Quote
the worst part is the next blog is the UI one which is likely to have the least info about balance changes and more be bizwoops and whizgigs that do not affect the bottom line :argh: Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:17:00 -
[1629] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:the worst part is the next blog is the UI one which is likely to have the least info about balance changes and more be bizwoops and whizgigs that do not affect the bottom line :argh:
:) almost like CCP donned a beekeepers suit smacked a hornets nest then sat down next to the tree with a coloring book. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:17:00 -
[1630] - Quote
that'll be funny actually..so many hints about what's to come and so much speculation...can't wait :D |
|
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
174
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:33:00 -
[1631] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:highsec should not be more profitable than null, it should have activities that are at a different place on the risk/reward/effort spectrum
afk mining, afk mission running, trade hub .01isking, all of these things are at a very different point on the risk/reward/effort spectrum and are more 'profitable' than many nullsec activities once you factor in effort (which highseccers never do)
every time you hear someone bleat "but people can gank me in highsec and its harder to gank you in null" they're always, always, always ignoring effort. once you factor in effort the argument evaporates like a fart in the wind.
High Sec will ALWAYS be more profitable than null. When (if ever) it is not it will result in or from at least one of two things happening:
1. Secure space in null.
2. This game loosing many many players that currently do industry in high security.
I trust you know why.
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:35:00 -
[1632] - Quote
The Alienator wrote:I'm going to preface this by getting a few points out there about my own experience in the game, in hopes of avoiding the "nullsec is awesome and elite and everyone else are scaredy-noobs" trolls. I've been playing the game since late 2008. I have five active subscriptions which I actually PAY for. I have lived and pewed in nullsec, lowsec & w-space for extended periods (about a year each). I've done FW. I've built & researched almost everything. I've done trade, industry, mining, exploration, etc.. I was a ninja-salvager with Suddenly Ninjas for years. Until recently I was part of Marmite (largely highsec PvP). I've ganked and been ganked. I've infiltrated corps and had corps infiltrated. I've even taken "a break" and once left the game completely for half a year. I have done it all, enjoyed most of it, made good friends and given CCP a LOT of money in exchange for that. Change happens. I've seen it countless times. Sometimes I benefited from the changes, sometimes I lost huge amounts of ISK. I've lucked into situations where changes saved me months of skill training, and have trained alts for specific purposes only to have a change render months of training useless for my purpose. Sometimes change is great. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. :) These industry changes, though, are a symptom of a larger issue that has been making Eve much less fun for me over the last few years. Mabrick captures it well: Building Better Worlds for Whom? Though I completely disagree with his idea that we should stop ganking in highsec, his other points are IMHO bang-on. Ultimately it comes down the the fact that CCP has been gradually and relentlessly trying to FORCE me to play in nullsec, partially through efforts to make highsec safer & more new-player-friendly (let's nerf ninja salvaging and add safeties to our ships). These industry changes, however, won't help drive new subs and will probably have the opposite impact by making production in highsec very low-profit (if profitable at all). CCP has been clear that they want to promote "risk vs reward" which really means "let's force experienced players to nullsec". What CCP is doing is making it impossible for me to choose to play this "sandbox" game in a way that I enjoy. They are (and have been, slowly over time) eliminating my options and effectively forcing me to play the way THEY want me to, or quit. That sucks. Look at Skyrim's success. Look at Civilization. Look at Eve's early success... Now look at *insert game with strict linear story-line here*. Remember it? No? Because they fail! People like choice and hate being forced into things. We get enough of that in RL. I've done nullsec & IMHO it sucks. If I wanted to be part of some mega-organization with a management structure driven by 20-somethings with power/self-esteem issues, I'd quit the game and spend my free time at work instead. I didn't join Eve to have that experience. I didn't join Eve to pay "rent" to a mega-corp for the privilege of getting access to a third-rate system with an empty local or to spend 12 hours in a TiDi slow-mo battle. I joined Eve to be my own person - I joined to explore a sandbox, make my own decisions, build relationships, make stuff, buy stuff, sell stuff, profit and to destroy other peoples stuff. I've been to nullsec. I've got the t-shirt. It's not fun for me. And that's ok. There are lots of people out there that have a different opinion of nullsec. It's their choice to live and play in nullsec. It's my choice to live in highsec and make forays into low, null and w-space when I want to. That's the key word here, CHOICE. Changes like this and CCP's 'risk vs reward' piling-on of benefits for nullsec play, have gotten ridiculous. I thought it was bad when they led all those lambs to slaughter during that live-event a few months ago, but it just doesn't stop. And nullsec is not nearly as "risky" as some like to claim. Nullsec can be very very dull and in some instances safer than highsec (depending on how/where you play). If it would drive new subs I could buy into changes like this (or at least chalk it up to 's*** happens, get over it'), but these changes aren't about that. They're aimed squarely at FORCING experienced players into null. Three of my accounts are focused on the highsec industry value-chain I've built and love managing. I can pick it up when I have a few spare minutes (unlike PvP, which I only do when I have time to do it properly). I have 100+ billion invested in BPO's, towers, mining ships, stock & transport ships but even without the details I can see that the only way to maintain these activities profitably is to move to null. Not by choice, but as a direct result of the changes CCP is proposing. Since I don't enjoy doing industry in nullsec my choices come down to maintaining an unprofitable/borderline business in highsec or leaving the business and focusing on other stuff. I'm resigned to leaving the business - my free time is too valuable (cost & risk vs reward). When the game time runs out on those three industry-focused accounts they won't be renewed. I've stopped training my industry and transport toons and am breeding toons on those accounts for sale. The stations are on the market. The BPO's will be researched until after the summer changes, then sold. I'm not rage-quitting - I'm keeping 2 accounts for PvP - but Eve no longer gets my (frequent) casual game time. In the last week alone I've bought The Stick of Truth, Total War and other games. They give me CHOICES and are a really fun way to spend 30-60 minutes a day. Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad.
Probably the most articulate post in this entire thread! |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14213
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:38:00 -
[1633] - Quote
meaning the person has been very specific and accurate in describing a bad attitude President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:47:00 -
[1634] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:The Alienator wrote:Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad. your entire post can be summarized as "you can't have rewards in nullsec, because I am in highsec!" a player now who wishes to do industry must be in highsec. post-patch, a player faces a choice with tradeoffs, and can be in either null or highsec you are whining up a storm over this new choice and trying to paint it as a choice elimination. it's not, you're just whining because highsec industry is no longer better in every way than 0.0
I guess we read different posts, my takeaway was completely different. Nobody who pays attention disagrees that Null Industry needs some love, but giving love to Null Industry did not have to include a nut shot to HS Industry. Alienator's position is well founded, no amount of carrot and stick will migrate players to Null simply because Null is its own crown of thorns. CCP's heavy handed tactics will serve to force players with limited play times and specific play styles to decide if Eve is the game for them anymore, thats not progress and any gains that Null realizes will be more than offset in HS sub losses. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14213
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:53:00 -
[1635] - Quote
i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 23:47:00 -
[1636] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses.
I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style.
There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1121
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 00:18:00 -
[1637] - Quote
Anders Madeveda wrote:Rain6637 wrote:i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses. I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style. There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision. What are these new limitations you keep talking about? All I see are limitations being removed. Basically it seems from your post like your evaluations about being successful were wrong and your profits simply propped up by artificial barriers which are now being torn down and are forcing you to actually compete with a wider range of individuals.
Another entertaining bit was claiming no emotional influence yet feeling the need to resort to name calling.
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
14215
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 00:27:00 -
[1638] - Quote
Anders Madeveda wrote:Rain6637 wrote:i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses. I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style. There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision. and my argument is simply against yours for the sake of it, cuz two can play that game President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Camladar
Iridescent Space Creatures Clandestine.
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 00:28:00 -
[1639] - Quote
I've just read the blog and and very interested to see how it works out. I'll not waste days reading all of the comments - which inevitably are full of bitches and moans - but just wanted to counter all of those posts and say thanks for what you're doing! It's certainly going to shake up things a bit. The new manuf. window looks amazing. Perhaps a little busy, but amazing nonetheless. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14215
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 01:02:00 -
[1640] - Quote
Anders, i made a picture to illustrate what the current situation is like, and why the slots thing should provide some enjoyment to new, more players, by providing infinite research slots.
http://i.imgur.com/0M5IRDK.jpg President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 01:06:00 -
[1641] - Quote
My view on this is generally positive. The industrial setup has needed an overhaul for quite some time, however I do feel that forcing placement of BPs in POS arrays or POS corporate hangars will add even more difficulty with asset management. Additionally one key aspect of the whole POS research/manufacturing that has always been a real annoyance doesn't seem to even be addressed, allowing corporation or even alliance member the use of arrays with their personal BPs
Another thing in the upcoming changes is the removal of standings in anchoring, granted this change will allow many POS sets by corporations otherwise excluded from high-sec deployment because of have a diverse composition of members. The side effect is that corps who vested massive amounts of time in running missions for the Empires to get the standings to set their own towers will lack such motivation keep it in addition to agents hostile to an empire to set in systems (which irronicly no established power would tolerate). I suppose it would be a boon for pirate/ganker PvP groups...
And as a side note; It seems to me (apparently others as well) the all improvements or changes to Eve comes with some social engineering tacked on it to give players a "push" to move high-sec to low-sec styles whether that is their choice or not. I fail to see any balance, low and null should be more profitable for those that embrace the risk, high-sec should be less profitable but with the security that more casual players enjoy. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
22
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:03:00 -
[1642] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Anders Madeveda wrote:Rain6637 wrote:i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses. I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style. There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision. What are these new limitations you keep talking about? All I see are limitations being removed. Basically it seems from your post like your evaluations about being successful were wrong and your profits simply propped up by artificial barriers which are now being torn down and are forcing you to actually compete with a wider range of individuals. Another entertaining bit was claiming no emotional influence yet feeling the need to resort to name calling.
I don't think I mention "limitations" once in any post I've thrown up here. The argument none of you null inhabitants has addressed regards play style. I have zero issue with how anyone in any space earns their isk and reaps enjoyment from the game. Gank, scam, pvp, etc to your hearts content, I welcome attempting to elude your efforts to blap me. The central argument is not Null vs High, nor their respective advantages. The central argument that all of us should be concerned about is CCP's efforts to force a play style/area on the player base. |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:13:00 -
[1643] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Anders, i made a picture to illustrate what the current situation is like, and why the slots thing should provide some enjoyment to new, more players, by providing infinite research slots. http://i.imgur.com/0M5IRDK.jpg
Lol, seen it, probably gonna have a T-shirt made with it. Doesn't change the base premise that CCP is pushing people into a style of play that they don't want to play. |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
16
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:18:00 -
[1644] - Quote
We, as high or null players, get wrapped up in the RvR argument every expansion. But people should, as others said, need to look if CCP is changing the "sandbox" to the bigger paying customers sandbox and not all its players sandbox. Every sandbox has something different in it.
The game has changed over my 10 years of play, but certain changes that are really driven to push or mold the sandbox in a direction that does meet my idea of that sandbox makes think about why i have multiple accounts.
Am I going to rage quit and biomass, no! i will take another break (last one was two expansions and change). After many other games I found that EVE is still my game.
It is what it is right now.... NEED MORE INFORMATION! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1121
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:20:00 -
[1645] - Quote
Anders Madeveda wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Anders Madeveda wrote:Rain6637 wrote:i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses. I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style. There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision. What are these new limitations you keep talking about? All I see are limitations being removed. Basically it seems from your post like your evaluations about being successful were wrong and your profits simply propped up by artificial barriers which are now being torn down and are forcing you to actually compete with a wider range of individuals. Another entertaining bit was claiming no emotional influence yet feeling the need to resort to name calling. I don't think I mention "limitations" once in any post I've thrown up here. The argument none of you null inhabitants has addressed regards play style. I have zero issue with how anyone in any space earns their isk and reaps enjoyment from the game. Gank, scam, pvp, etc to your hearts content, I welcome attempting to elude your efforts to blap me. The central argument is not Null vs High, nor their respective advantages. The central argument that all of us should be concerned about is CCP's efforts to force a play style/area on the player base. "When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play."
This was the crux of your complaint. Some imaginary detriment to your "playstyle" by way of it becoming more limited. So the question still stands, what is that limitation? And where is this effort to force people to play in null? How does this manifest? I can say I honestly don't expect a real answer as you are as horrendously un-objective as they come. |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
23
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:24:00 -
[1646] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:I have the feeling, this turns into a "grr null" vs. "grr hisec" trench warfare... Although i am heavily invested in highsec industry around T2 production, i really welcome the basic ideas behind the proposed changes (and unfortunately agree with a good portion of the goony statements). But (and that's a freakin huge BUT) on the other hand, until CCP provides us actual hard numbers, i keep being afraid, because this has a damn big potential on backfiring in epic ways if implemented poorly...
Therefore i dearly hope, that the next blogs on the list get out soon (without the Gäó), so we can have a knowledgable discussion instead of the bitching about why a certain area of space is inferior/superior/poorer/lamer/safer/whatsoeva
So please CCP, throw out more information!
This...CCP needs to release the rest of this quickly or people will start passing out from hypoxia! |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
447
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:33:00 -
[1647] - Quote
On a slightly different tack from everyone else here, What about these changes promotes cooperative game play? Everything ive seen, detracts from any real organizing of industrialists,
- Unlimited slots in stations makes it less likely that i want to put up pos in the first place as lab slots in a pos was the main reason to have one in hisec. - Reduction of standings requirements means that new players have no incentive to join my established corp for the use of pos slots - Moving pos research to exclusively pos lab based hangers means that my bpos' are less secure then in station based corp hangers from corp theft (as roles for placing items into pos mods are the same as placing pos mods)
While the last one might be intentional, changing the way research in a pos works without first changing how pos works is a terrible idea,
But please tell me how the changes in this blog encourage team game play, i am curious if i am correct on this. 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.
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
32
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:43:00 -
[1648] - Quote
Well, you were all busy while I was at work, and since Malcanis never came back I guess I'll deal with those who had the stones.
Aryth wrote:The best part of this thread is when people admit they don't know the first thing about nullsec mechanics. After having been arguing the merits of a change that impacts null and highsec. If you want to be successful in this game or at least successful at arguing the mechanics within it, perhaps it might be useful to actually know mechanics beyond your small corner of the game.
Shocking concept I know.
That's all well and good for most of them. But when you speak to me, you speak to someone who has lived, mined and built in nullsec for most of the last 3 years.
Weaselior wrote:yeah i think we can all agree on MAKE WITH THE REST OF THE BLOGS AAAUGH
For once you say something I can agree with.
Rain6637 wrote:meaning the person has been very specific and accurate in describing a bad attitude
If by bad attitude you mean having the audacity to play a sandbox game his way, by his own rules, then you are correct.
Anders Madeveda wrote: I guess we disagree then, the difference is that my conclusion is based on the logic of the issue without regard to emotion. There are many, many industrialists like me who have multiple subscriptions(6), that are rethinking the amount of time and effort that goes into building a large successful industry corp. If faced with the choice of either playing just as long/hard for significantly less return and vastly increased risk or moving my operation to Null and dealing with the prepubescent corps/alliances/players that reside out there or alternately dropping several of my subscriptions and playing more ESO, Star Citizen etc. Many of us will just choose to do something that is more accepting of our gaming style.
There will always be spikes and valleys in sub rates in an MMO, what makes(made) Eve unique was that the learning curve weeded out the casual and left you with a core group of devoted members. When you limit the style of play that a segment wants then you limit the number of people who want to play. This would hold true of any style of play, if CCP decided tomorrow that there would be no ganking in HS they would lose sub's as a result of that decision.
This guy gets it. It's not rocket science people.
Anders Madeveda wrote: What are these new limitations you keep talking about? All I see are limitations being removed.
The loss of remote jobs vastly increases the value at risk for any pos related industry work with BPO's. That is a giant nut crusher when you have multiple 1 billion isk plus BPO's in process at any one time. In the meantime we know exactly **** all about any changes to bonuses for POS arraysd and CCP having the audacity to charge us isk on top of already paying for POS fuels. And just because they haven't broken things enough, BPO's can't be locked down in a control tower. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14216
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:47:00 -
[1649] - Quote
sorta thanks for agreeing with me? President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1121
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:51:00 -
[1650] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:The loss of remote jobs vastly increases the value at risk for any pos related industry work with BPO's. That is a giant nut crusher when you have multiple 1 billion isk plus BPO's in process at any one time. In the meantime we know exactly **** all about any changes to bonuses for POS arraysd and CCP having the audacity to charge us isk on top of already paying for POS fuels. And just because they haven't broken things enough, BPO's can't be locked down in a control tower. Most of this is intentional, but the one main thing that was driving many POS related research jobs was slot availability. With that being resolved there becomes a whole different level of opportunity being ignored to focus on what a smaller set lost. It even provides a very handy out for dragging multi billion BPO's for researc in a POS. Yes, if you MUST use the POS for some self imposed reason there is a greater risk, but now it's at least a choice instead of being practically a mandate for getting some ME research done.
|
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
32
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 03:03:00 -
[1651] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Urziel99 wrote:The loss of remote jobs vastly increases the value at risk for any pos related industry work with BPO's. That is a giant nut crusher when you have multiple 1 billion isk plus BPO's in process at any one time. In the meantime we know exactly **** all about any changes to bonuses for POS arraysd and CCP having the audacity to charge us isk on top of already paying for POS fuels. And just because they haven't broken things enough, BPO's can't be locked down in a control tower. Most of this is intentional, but the one main thing that was driving many POS related research jobs was slot availability. With that being resolved there becomes a whole different level of opportunity being ignored to focus on what a smaller set lost. It even provides a very handy out for dragging multi billion BPO's for researc in a POS. Yes, if you MUST use the POS for some self imposed reason there is a greater risk, but now it's at least a choice instead of being practically a mandate for getting some ME research done.
Considering how few science services are available in empire, the costs of research in station may be very pricy, also Tech 3 science and industry can't be done in stations. The question that is still lingering will be changes to speed bonuses for array use. Station services can be soul-crushingly slow, especially for T2 production. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1121
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 03:12:00 -
[1652] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Urziel99 wrote:The loss of remote jobs vastly increases the value at risk for any pos related industry work with BPO's. That is a giant nut crusher when you have multiple 1 billion isk plus BPO's in process at any one time. In the meantime we know exactly **** all about any changes to bonuses for POS arraysd and CCP having the audacity to charge us isk on top of already paying for POS fuels. And just because they haven't broken things enough, BPO's can't be locked down in a control tower. Most of this is intentional, but the one main thing that was driving many POS related research jobs was slot availability. With that being resolved there becomes a whole different level of opportunity being ignored to focus on what a smaller set lost. It even provides a very handy out for dragging multi billion BPO's for researc in a POS. Yes, if you MUST use the POS for some self imposed reason there is a greater risk, but now it's at least a choice instead of being practically a mandate for getting some ME research done. Considering how few science services are available in empire, the costs of research in station may be very pricy, also Tech 3 science and industry can't be done in stations. The question that is still lingering will be changes to speed bonuses for array use. Station services can be soul-crushingly slow, especially for T2 production. We'll have to see how research scales, though if it has a reasonable cap like manufacturing does it won't be too much of an issue. T3 manufacture doesn't put your BPO's at risk, individual losses aren't nearly as crippling. Regarding times, we don't have the numbers to determine what the end result will be there, could stay the same, could be worse, could be better. We'll see, but there needs to be some give to make a POS worthwhile and again, if you do what will likely be cost capped research/invention in a station your risks to BPO's are still capped by your choices. |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
16
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 03:18:00 -
[1653] - Quote
And the question remains of how much more pricy than running a POS (fuel, modules, and the risk factor)? |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2748
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 03:26:00 -
[1654] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Urziel99 wrote:The loss of remote jobs vastly increases the value at risk for any pos related industry work with BPO's. That is a giant nut crusher when you have multiple 1 billion isk plus BPO's in process at any one time. In the meantime we know exactly **** all about any changes to bonuses for POS arraysd and CCP having the audacity to charge us isk on top of already paying for POS fuels. And just because they haven't broken things enough, BPO's can't be locked down in a control tower. Most of this is intentional, but the one main thing that was driving many POS related research jobs was slot availability. With that being resolved there becomes a whole different level of opportunity being ignored to focus on what a smaller set lost. It even provides a very handy out for dragging multi billion BPO's for researc in a POS. Yes, if you MUST use the POS for some self imposed reason there is a greater risk, but now it's at least a choice instead of being practically a mandate for getting some ME research done. Considering how few science services are available in empire, the costs of research in station may be very pricy, also Tech 3 science and industry can't be done in stations. The question that is still lingering will be changes to speed bonuses for array use. Station services can be soul-crushingly slow, especially for T2 production.
Don't worry about T2 invention. Read the blog again. It will be given the same treatment as high sec mfg and copying, but it won't happen until the fall / winter. By then, we will start to see what these seeds have sown, subscription wise. I asked on page 75 what the dev's expect the subscription fallout will be, and one of the chief architects of these changes answered. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
32
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 03:43:00 -
[1655] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Urziel99 wrote:The loss of remote jobs vastly increases the value at risk for any pos related industry work with BPO's. That is a giant nut crusher when you have multiple 1 billion isk plus BPO's in process at any one time. In the meantime we know exactly **** all about any changes to bonuses for POS arraysd and CCP having the audacity to charge us isk on top of already paying for POS fuels. And just because they haven't broken things enough, BPO's can't be locked down in a control tower. Most of this is intentional, but the one main thing that was driving many POS related research jobs was slot availability. With that being resolved there becomes a whole different level of opportunity being ignored to focus on what a smaller set lost. It even provides a very handy out for dragging multi billion BPO's for researc in a POS. Yes, if you MUST use the POS for some self imposed reason there is a greater risk, but now it's at least a choice instead of being practically a mandate for getting some ME research done. Considering how few science services are available in empire, the costs of research in station may be very pricy, also Tech 3 science and industry can't be done in stations. The question that is still lingering will be changes to speed bonuses for array use. Station services can be soul-crushingly slow, especially for T2 production. Don't worry about T2 invention. Read the blog again. It will be given the same treatment as high sec mfg and copying, but it won't happen until the fall / winter. By then, we will start to see what these seeds have sown, subscription wise. I asked on page 75 what the dev's expect the subscription fallout will be, and one of the chief architects of these changes answered.
You give Aryth too much credit. The goon financiers may be diabolical, even evil. But even they aren't that powerful. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
393
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 03:45:00 -
[1656] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:The Alienator wrote:Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad. your entire post can be summarized as "you can't have rewards in nullsec, because I am in highsec!" Hmm... I think a better summary of Alienator's post is that he has chosen to accept the common chant (or should that be "rant") of the "EVE is harsh" camp: "Adapt or die".
Alienator is *not* quitting the game. He is simply "adapting" by quitting his high-sec industry game play and keeping his PVP game play.
And isn't that what CCP has been saying that they want everyone to do? Quit the risk-free casual high-sec carebear activities and focus on PVP?
Well, ok, then. Here you go.
Besides, I'm sure that CCP doesn't need that revenue from Alienator's 3 unsubbed carebear accounts, anyways. If they can weed out all of that unnecessary carebear game play, then they can focus on PVP development only and layoff more people to retain profitability.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2749
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 03:47:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Urziel99 wrote:The loss of remote jobs vastly increases the value at risk for any pos related industry work with BPO's. That is a giant nut crusher when you have multiple 1 billion isk plus BPO's in process at any one time. In the meantime we know exactly **** all about any changes to bonuses for POS arraysd and CCP having the audacity to charge us isk on top of already paying for POS fuels. And just because they haven't broken things enough, BPO's can't be locked down in a control tower. Most of this is intentional, but the one main thing that was driving many POS related research jobs was slot availability. With that being resolved there becomes a whole different level of opportunity being ignored to focus on what a smaller set lost. It even provides a very handy out for dragging multi billion BPO's for researc in a POS. Yes, if you MUST use the POS for some self imposed reason there is a greater risk, but now it's at least a choice instead of being practically a mandate for getting some ME research done. Considering how few science services are available in empire, the costs of research in station may be very pricy, also Tech 3 science and industry can't be done in stations. The question that is still lingering will be changes to speed bonuses for array use. Station services can be soul-crushingly slow, especially for T2 production. Don't worry about T2 invention. Read the blog again. It will be given the same treatment as high sec mfg and copying, but it won't happen until the fall / winter. By then, we will start to see what these seeds have sown, subscription wise. I asked on page 75 what the dev's expect the subscription fallout will be, and one of the chief architects of these changes answered. You give Aryth too much credit. The goon financiers may be diabolical, even evil. But even they aren't that powerful.
The greatest trick the devil played was to convince people he did not exist. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3409
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 04:25:00 -
[1658] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Urziel99 wrote:
You give Aryth too much credit. The goon financiers may be diabolical, even evil. But even they aren't that powerful.
The greatest trick the devil played was to convince people he did not exist.
You give Aryth too much credit. He's too ****ing lazy to architect much of anything; there's a reason why I do the majority of the finance work. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Castles
Sovereign Power Company
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 04:29:00 -
[1659] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Weaselior wrote:The Alienator wrote:Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad. your entire post can be summarized as "you can't have rewards in nullsec, because I am in highsec!" Hmm... I think a better summary of Alienator's post is that he has chosen to accept the common chant (or should that be "rant") of the "EVE is harsh" camp: "Adapt or die". Alienator is *not* quitting the game. He is simply "adapting" by quitting his high-sec industry game play and keeping his PVP game play. And isn't that what CCP has been saying that they want everyone to do? Quit the risk-free casual high-sec carebear activities and focus on PVP? Well, ok, then. Here you go. Besides, I'm sure that CCP doesn't need that revenue from Alienator's 3 unsubbed carebear accounts, anyways. If they can weed out all of that unnecessary carebear game play, then they can focus on PVP development only and layoff more people to retain profitability.
I don't know what planet Weaselior is from, but you're too kind to him Sizeof Void.
Depending on how the next couple of dev-blogs go, there might be a substantial exodus of players from the game by the time the revamp goes into effect. At any rate, the last thing that will stop them from leaving is obvious nullbears mocking anyone for telling things from a different perspective that doesn't fit their own -- yeah, I'm so looking forward to paying rent to people who think like Weaselior. I thought it was bad enough having to pay CCP.
Hopefully CCP has a better answer than the ones they've given so far. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 04:49:00 -
[1660] - Quote
Ok, I have not read the previous 78 or so pages...just can't be bothered.
Still I have to say, the removal of the standings requirement for POS in HS (High Sec) will, all other things held constant, drive T2 prices down.
The standings requirement for a POS was a significant barrier to entry. Barriers to entry reduce compettion. Reduced competition will drive up prices (and economic profits).
Of course, more POS going up by budding industrialists will likely mean higher PI prices (making POS' more expensive to maintain and putting a limit on how many POS' will be going up).
So the overall effect is ambiguous from what I can see, but my view is more competition the better as it tends to lead to lower prices overall. |
|
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
27
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 05:43:00 -
[1661] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Anders Madeveda wrote:[quote=Tyberius Franklin][quote=Anders Madeveda][quote=Rain6637]i think the HS sub gains will outpace the HS sub losses. This was the crux of your complaint. Some imaginary detriment to your "playstyle" by way of it becoming more limited. So the question still stands, what is that limitation? And where is this effort to force people to play in null? How does this manifest? I can say I honestly don't expect a real answer as you are as horrendously un-objective as they come.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't looking to be "objective" in my post rather I was articulating the frustration High Sec Industrialists have expressed regarding the upcoming changes. Let me turn the argument around and ask exactly what your specific High Sec Industrial experience is? Build a few tormentors or shuttles during the Career Missions 100 years ago? I oversee 12-20 Billion in production per week, with BPO assets exceeding 80 Billion. I know my credentials and qualifications to speak about how High Sec Industrialists think of these changes, care to enlighten me as to yours? Or are you just a troll looking to see your name in lights?
If you read CCP Dev blogs, Jester's Blog and countless others you would understand that there is a concerted effort to move more industry to Null(exactly what do you think this entire debacle is for?) My point, for the 38th time, is that there is a large group of High Sec manufacturers who do not want to go to Null and very probably will stop production because the risk(BPO's must be in POS), aggravation(make BPO copies for every high value POS job), additional expense(variable taxes even on POS production) and competitive disadvantage(duh, Nulsec is cheaper) that HS Industry will now incur. There is no "imaginary" obstacle to High Sec enjoyment of Industry, this dev blog makes it reality.
Let me just pre-empt your very witty response-of course no one is saying build here or else, instead they are taking all motivation to build in location "A" and moving it to location "B" which coincidentally is the place no one wants to live as evidenced by all the null bears who come to high sec for carebear thrills(Way to pwn that unarmed industrial, you manly man).
Post Script: Objective; (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (Of course I'm not being objective, everything I'm saying on this thread is influenced by MY opinions regarding the facts laid in the CCP changes) |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 06:16:00 -
[1662] - Quote
Anders Madeveda wrote: If you read CCP Dev blogs, Jester's Blog and countless others you would understand that there is a concerted effort to move more industry to Null(exactly what do you think this entire debacle is for?) My point, for the 38th time, is that there is a large group of High Sec manufacturers who do not want to go to Null and very probably will stop production because the risk(BPO's must be in POS), aggravation(make BPO copies for every high value POS job), additional expense(variable taxes even on POS production) and competitive disadvantage(duh, Nulsec is cheaper) that HS Industry will now incur. There is no "imaginary" obstacle to High Sec enjoyment of Industry, this dev blog makes it reality.
Jester is a being a boob.
Sure, there are some boosts, in theory, to null production. But if you want to engage in null production you have to have access to slots in null....those kinds of rights are not handed out like the cheap ass candy on Halloween night. It is often reserved for some of the most trusted people in a corporation.
You and ding-a-lings like Jester and Mord Fiddle keep overlooking this stuff. And it is OMFG Goons are going to shut down High Sec. Whether it be POCOs or spamming POS'. Nevermind that the former means passing up solid amounts of isk and the latter means spending huge amounts of isk.
Here is an idea, go to dotlan and come back and tell us exactly how many moons are in High Security space. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 06:28:00 -
[1663] - Quote
As an addition to my previous post on concerns involving the proposed changes it became apparent that some argue with the specific change off removing empire restriction as beneficial and good for the bottom line.
There are some misconceptions with current system.
a. In it's current form it actually favors those smaller corps who through various strategies can easily get the standing to set a tower.
Example: 1. A group of young industrialist with similar faction preference form a new corp and earn a slightly protected niche through service to their particular faction.
2. An established corporation decides to operate a POS in high-sec, members with poor standing drop for little over a week while those with good standing further increase it and possibly take advantage of one of the several faction building services(optional)
There are other ways but those are the two most likely, and in both instances it would be in their interest to defend the existing High-sec POS than pull up stakes every time the wind blow foul.
b. Removing the standing restriction will allow very large firmly established corporations to drop POS's everywhere, ironicly allowing them to move certain assets out of true harms way,
To be perfectly candid every lost POS I've seen in High-sec was solely due either inadequate/zero defenses and operator inexperience. As a counter point to that in low there are these really nasty things called capital ships that are able to tank even decent POS with little support, additionally a low-sec POS can be hit at anytime with or without a war dec
The standing mechanic in high-sec is balanced even if it is annoying as listening to Teletubbies and Barry blaring at full volume with driving in rush hour traffic in an older major city
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1124
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 06:35:00 -
[1664] - Quote
Anders Madeveda wrote: I'm pretty sure I wasn't looking to be "objective" in my post rather I was articulating the frustration High Sec Industrialists have expressed regarding the upcoming changes. Let me turn the argument around and ask exactly what your specific High Sec Industrial experience is? Build a few tormentors or shuttles during the Career Missions 100 years ago? I oversee 12-20 Billion in production per week, with BPO assets exceeding 80 Billion. I know my credentials and qualifications to speak about how High Sec Industrialists think of these changes, care to enlighten me as to yours? Or are you just a troll looking to see your name in lights?
If you read CCP Dev blogs, Jester's Blog and countless others you would understand that there is a concerted effort to move more industry to Null(exactly what do you think this entire debacle is for?) My point, for the 38th time, is that there is a large group of High Sec manufacturers who do not want to go to Null and very probably will stop production because the risk(BPO's must be in POS), aggravation(make BPO copies for every high value POS job), additional expense(variable taxes even on POS production) and competitive disadvantage(duh, Nulsec is cheaper) that HS Industry will now incur. There is no "imaginary" obstacle to High Sec enjoyment of Industry, this dev blog makes it reality.
Let me just pre-empt your very witty response-of course no one is saying build here or else, instead they are taking all motivation to build in location "A" and moving it to location "B" which coincidentally is the place no one wants to live as evidenced by all the null bears who come to high sec for carebear thrills(Way to pwn that unarmed industrial, you manly man).
Post Script: Objective; (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (Of course I'm not being objective, everything I'm saying on this thread is influenced by MY opinions regarding the facts laid in the CCP changes)
No one is making you move to null. No one is trying to move all industry to null. What they are doing is trying to make industry in null not something only the incredibly bored and/or uniformed do. And it's not affecting sec statuses disproportionately from the details shared thus far (BPO's/copying aren't necessary for POS jobs in just highsec). There is no major driver to leave highsec. Every single risk and new step you just complained about will exist there.
Actually, what did they move there that isn't in highsec anymore? Refine rates are the only things I can really think of, though the POS rates will still be available in highsec from the looks of it. The potential for POS ownership were actually expanded in highsec as well. I'm not seeing anything particularly highsec centric about this nerf.
What it sounds like you are saying is that if you don't have every conceivable advantage then you can't operate. And of course, if you have every advantage the only thing a smart person produces outside of highsec are things that can't be produced in highsec. That's just as much of a **** you to the producers that do live in null as you claim CCP is giving you.
And that's where objectivity comes in. Without it you're seeming to generate some sort of persecution complex without realizing that the guy who you are complaining about them giving everything to just got his workflow smashed as well, or do you not believe that nullsec inhabitants (what few can justify producing there currently) would keep their BPO's in an outpost whenever possible? |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 07:02:00 -
[1665] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Anders Madeveda wrote: I'm pretty sure I wasn't looking to be "objective" in my post rather I was articulating the frustration High Sec Industrialists have expressed regarding the upcoming changes. Let me turn the argument around and ask exactly what your specific High Sec Industrial experience is? Build a few tormentors or shuttles during the Career Missions 100 years ago? I oversee 12-20 Billion in production per week, with BPO assets exceeding 80 Billion. I know my credentials and qualifications to speak about how High Sec Industrialists think of these changes, care to enlighten me as to yours? Or are you just a troll looking to see your name in lights?
If you read CCP Dev blogs, Jester's Blog and countless others you would understand that there is a concerted effort to move more industry to Null(exactly what do you think this entire debacle is for?) My point, for the 38th time, is that there is a large group of High Sec manufacturers who do not want to go to Null and very probably will stop production because the risk(BPO's must be in POS), aggravation(make BPO copies for every high value POS job), additional expense(variable taxes even on POS production) and competitive disadvantage(duh, Nulsec is cheaper) that HS Industry will now incur. There is no "imaginary" obstacle to High Sec enjoyment of Industry, this dev blog makes it reality.
Let me just pre-empt your very witty response-of course no one is saying build here or else, instead they are taking all motivation to build in location "A" and moving it to location "B" which coincidentally is the place no one wants to live as evidenced by all the null bears who come to high sec for carebear thrills(Way to pwn that unarmed industrial, you manly man).
Post Script: Objective; (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (Of course I'm not being objective, everything I'm saying on this thread is influenced by MY opinions regarding the facts laid in the CCP changes)
No one is making you move to null. No one is trying to move all industry to null. What they are doing is trying to make industry in null not something only the incredibly bored and/or uniformed do. And it's not affecting sec statuses disproportionately from the details shared thus far (BPO's/copying aren't necessary for POS jobs in just highsec). There is no major driver to leave highsec. Every single risk and new step you just complained about will exist there. Actually, what did they move there that isn't in highsec anymore? Refine rates are the only things I can really think of, though the POS rates will still be available in highsec from the looks of it. The potential for POS ownership were actually expanded in highsec as well. I'm not seeing anything particularly highsec centric about this nerf. What it sounds like you are saying is that if you don't have every conceivable advantage then you can't operate. And of course, if you have every advantage the only thing a smart person produces outside of highsec are things that can't be produced in highsec. That's just as much of a **** you to the producers that do live in null as you claim CCP is giving you. And that's where objectivity comes in. Without it you're seeming to generate some sort of persecution complex without realizing that the guy who you are complaining about them giving everything to just got his workflow smashed as well, or do you not believe that nullsec inhabitants (what few can justify producing there currently) would keep their BPO's in an outpost whenever possible?
Basically this. People are losing some of the advantages they used to have and are complaining as the playing field is leveled.
Oh noes...my economic rents!!! |
Bronco Platz
Intercosmic Fruit Company
135
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 08:14:00 -
[1666] - Quote
I think, CCP lost all of its economic thinking. They writed of WoD not long ago. Now they are releasing a expansion, that not only will not bring any new players to Eve, no it is even more the opposite. Eve will forseeable lose subscriptions. Even the Null-warlords (in my oppinion, the people who dictated this expansion to CCP-¦s head) confirmed this one or two pages before.
So tell me, how this is going to make Eve better. It is not, that Eve is in a very good shape and it could stand to lose players. There is more competion out there than ever. Okay, SC could turn out as the biggest scam in the history of kickstarter. But be that as it may. Eve needs more (real) new players as never before. And CCP pulls out such a crap? I really can-¦t get it... This signature is under NDA. Sorry. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 08:25:00 -
[1667] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Still I have to say, the removal of the standings requirement for POS in HS (High Sec) will, all other things held constant, drive T2 prices down.
The problem in this assumption is, that it ignores the removal of extra materials and the integration of them into the regular materials for production. And since for T2 manufacturing you have the T2 components in the extra materials category, you will most likely, so summer comes, face a huge blast of increased manufacturing costs, given there are no steps intended by CCP to counter that effect when removing extra materials.
Assuming that materials stay the same and the cost scaling can be managed down to an insignificant factor, the only margin killer i see, is the ease of use (hopefully) provided by the new industry UI. Currently it is a plain PITA to get invention/research/production done in a large scale (and i'm talking roughly 200 manufacturing jobs per day for a single person here). Requiring about 10 seconds top for a single job to install (i attribute about 4s of that to the f***ing slow UI-to-Server reaction time), this adds up to a very large time investment. Together with standing requirements for a POS this stops many a potential T2 manufacturer from stepping in and providing some competition. Take away the chunk of this hassle, and i'm sure, there will be a lot more small producers, each focusing on a certain tiny set of T2 modules/rigs/ammo/ships (accompanied by the leave of bigger ones, judging from the ranting in this thread). So maybe (under the so far very uncertain assumption, that the changes get implemented properly) this can serve as a prime example, that should be applied to other aspects of the game, too. Meaning it would in many areas be healthy to partly tear down large established entities in favor of support to many smaller ones. Again, just an thought...
Tyberius Franklin wrote:No one is making you move to null. No one is trying to move all industry to null.
There might be some incentive from CCP to "encourage" the industrialists to move to null, but what many opponents of the upcoming changes seem to miss is, that it is simply not possible to move industry in large to nullsec. At least not in a magnitude, many fear would be the case. I'm pretty sure, CCP could provide us with some numbers, showing how many m-¦ of goods get produced in hisec/lowsec/nullsec per day and how much of that gets moved to the other areas of space. And in comparison to that maybe some nullsec logisticians might care to share (rough) estimates of a nullsec powerbloc's hauling capabilities (and the fuel costs associated with it). Ah, and all those numbers should exclude cap and supercap production if possible.
Sure, some stuff will be rather produced locally in null, instead of moving materials to hs and building/buying it there. But for many things that require a wast amount of different ingredients, the logistic overhead will definitely out weight the (supposed to be small, but again, GIVE US NUMBERS, CCP!!) advantage of null factories over highsec stations/POSes.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1023
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 08:49:00 -
[1668] - Quote
Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.
Looking forward to the figures dev blog. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
412
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 09:38:00 -
[1669] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.
Looking forward to the figures dev blog.
As you mention it... since CONCORD is not able to provide direct chat access in W-space, how is the SCC or any other NPC corp (assuming that the fees for jobs are paid to these NPC entities) supposed to collect the fees from W-space POS? Of course, it's just a game and logic only goes so far; but how could the SCC reach W-space to collect fees when it's mighty mother company CONCORD cannot access W-space? |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1023
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 09:45:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Zappity wrote:Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.
Looking forward to the figures dev blog. As you mention it... since CONCORD is not able to provide direct chat access in W-space, how is the SCC or any other NPC corp (assuming that the fees for jobs are paid to these NPC entities) supposed to collect the fees from W-space POS? Of course, it's just a game and logic only goes so far; but how could the SCC reach W-space to collect fees when it's mighty mother company CONCORD cannot access W-space? I don't really care to be honest. Just a balancing cost.
I'd love to see J-space bonused for T3 and booster production and lowsec for subcaps and T2 modules (or whatever). Some differentiation would be nice apart from cost alone. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3108
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 09:46:00 -
[1671] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Zappity wrote:Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.
Looking forward to the figures dev blog. As you mention it... since CONCORD is not able to provide direct chat access in W-space, how is the SCC or any other NPC corp (assuming that the fees for jobs are paid to these NPC entities) supposed to collect the fees from W-space POS? Of course, it's just a game and logic only goes so far; but how could the SCC reach W-space to collect fees when it's mighty mother company CONCORD cannot access W-space? @Soldarius (or shall I say Hibana?) Wonderful post of you. I just hope you give me reason to put my ignorance away, because as things stand there is no reason to show 00 sec any less of it.
Because all your banking is done in K-Space, and they just garnish your income? 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
386
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 09:49:00 -
[1672] - Quote
skim read back across the last posts and two things come out. One is that hisec has every advantage for S&I. I still don't believe that since to produce many goods I need materials or products that can only be sourced from low/null. Choose to no longer supply those and you choke hisec industry. Hand in hand with this is 'level the playing field' in S&I.
Fine, I have no problem with nullsec stations being opened up ( just with nullsec *always* having to be better for every area) to allow more slots etc...in return how about giving hisec and WH's moon goo? That'll level the manufacturing capabilities of all the areas in terms of materials available. Simply have moons in hisec less profitable as with the other materials. of course the moons in WH should then be super profitable.
It was my understanding that having less mexallon in null and no moon goo in hi was intended to increase player and goods mobility. Buffing null industry (not simply opening it up on an even basis) would surely go against this as null has everything available locally where the other areas do not, setting aside the obvious retorts about how hard it is to acquire resources in null. The point is that null will be the only self contained area capable of producing everything in game. To level the playing field every area would have to have everything accessible.
The game should either keep the principle of player and goods mobility which I would prefer, more people moving around means more interaction. Different security areas being better (or the only) option for certain goods or services makes for a more diverse setting.
Otherwise level the playing field by making everything available everywhere, with amounts available and effort required to gather those amounts being scaled based upon security area. This would be the only way to argue that risk vs reward is truly in play.
Somebody a while back pointed out that they wanted to do S&I in null rather than use the current hisec alt. If this was a case of wanting to do S&I as something else to do in the game then what is the issue with having a hisec alt to do this? The drive to move S&I into null is for ease of production and improved profit in nullsec otherwise why push so hard for the change?
The strength of Eve as a game is the diversity of playstyles and areas, a push to 'encourage' players to move to null as they progress is artificial and stifling in my opinion.. I would argue that more and stronger differences between the security areas would be much better.
I would also quite like to see something like the border zones between losec and null becoming a warzone between null and empire (kind of extended faction war I guess but pitting empire fleet backed capsuleers against null capsuleer fleets. This would be more likely to entice hisec players to venture to null for combat and would introduce many new players to those areas. How achievable this would be I'm not sure but giving people the choice to participate in null combat from hisec bases would be more likely to encourage people to move down than forcing them by slowly crippling the economy of the higher security system
A bit rambling...but whatever...i'm bored in work :D
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
386
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 09:51:00 -
[1673] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Zappity wrote:Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.
Looking forward to the figures dev blog. As you mention it... since CONCORD is not able to provide direct chat access in W-space, how is the SCC or any other NPC corp (assuming that the fees for jobs are paid to these NPC entities) supposed to collect the fees from W-space POS? Of course, it's just a game and logic only goes so far; but how could the SCC reach W-space to collect fees when it's mighty mother company CONCORD cannot access W-space? I don't really care to be honest. Just a balancing cost. I'd love to see J-space bonused for T3 and booster production and lowsec for subcaps and T2 modules (or whatever). Some differentiation would be nice apart from cost alone.
Exactly my thinking, differentiate the regions to give people more variety and choice in activities. I would much prefer there to be strong differences between and reasons to travel to the various regions of space. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
412
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 10:37:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Zappity wrote:Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.
Looking forward to the figures dev blog. As you mention it... since CONCORD is not able to provide direct chat access in W-space, how is the SCC or any other NPC corp (assuming that the fees for jobs are paid to these NPC entities) supposed to collect the fees from W-space POS? Of course, it's just a game and logic only goes so far; but how could the SCC reach W-space to collect fees when it's mighty mother company CONCORD cannot access W-space? @Soldarius (or shall I say Hibana?) Wonderful post of you. I just hope you give me reason to put my ignorance away, because as things stand there is no reason to show 00 sec any less of it. Because all your banking is done in K-Space, and they just garnish your income?
And how does SCC learn about your fees incuring activities if you are in W-space, where the subspace beacons who relay that kind of information in K-space are not reachable? |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 10:46:00 -
[1675] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:skim read back across the last posts and two things come out. One is that hisec has every advantage for S&I. I still don't believe that since to produce many goods I need materials or products that can only be sourced from low/null. Choose to no longer supply those and you choke hisec industry. Hand in hand with this is 'level the playing field' in S&I.
Fine, I have no problem with nullsec stations being opened up ( just with nullsec *always* having to be better for every area) to allow more slots etc...in return how about giving hisec and WH's moon goo? That'll level the manufacturing capabilities of all the areas in terms of materials available. Simply have moons in hisec less profitable as with the other materials. of course the moons in WH should then be super profitable.
It was my understanding that having less mexallon in null and no moon goo in hi was intended to increase player and goods mobility. Buffing null industry (not simply opening it up on an even basis) would surely go against this as null has everything available locally where the other areas do not, setting aside the obvious retorts about how hard it is to acquire resources in null. The point is that null will be the only self contained area capable of producing everything in game. To level the playing field every area would have to have everything accessible.
The game should either keep the principle of player and goods mobility which I would prefer, more people moving around means more interaction. Different security areas being better (or the only) option for certain goods or services makes for a more diverse setting.
Otherwise level the playing field by making everything available everywhere, with amounts available and effort required to gather those amounts being scaled based upon security area. This would be the only way to argue that risk vs reward is truly in play.
Somebody a while back pointed out that they wanted to do S&I in null rather than use the current hisec alt. If this was a case of wanting to do S&I as something else to do in the game then what is the issue with having a hisec alt to do this? The drive to move S&I into null is for ease of production and improved profit in nullsec otherwise why push so hard for the change?
The strength of Eve as a game is the diversity of playstyles and areas, a push to 'encourage' players to move to null as they progress is artificial and stifling in my opinion.. I would argue that more and stronger differences between the security areas would be much better.
So you are saying that industry should be possible in hisec, but just less profitable than in null?
Which is pretty much the whole point of these changes.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
387
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 11:11:00 -
[1676] - Quote
I agree with the changes in S&I, always have. I am fine with null being viable for S&I too, never said anything otherwise and I actually thought it already was. My view and firm belief is that the game would benefit from the areas of space having different focus and resources to promote interaction between them and give players greater choice. I questioned *why* null should have the best of everything (and that isn't to say I am assuming these changes in summer will provide that).
I'm pretty much consistent in all of my posts in the various threads that more choice is a good thing, player mobility is an even better thing, and changes to the game that promote wither and or both of these are very definitely good things.
The casual player base use hisec because it suits the amount of time they can dedicate to the game. The activities they perform are not exclusive in the sense that anybody in hisec can do them. The hisec player has no advantage over the losec or nullsec player here as those from other areas can more likely afford an alt in hisec to compete with the dedicated hisec players (what with the higher reward that comes from living in lower sec regions).
Hisec should have industry as its focus, this makes sense as stability breeds business. losec should be better for moon mining and reactions maybe, null for raw resource amounts, ratting, exploration (to a degree) and WH's for gas and T3. This would give people more choice about where they play, more reason to move system to system, better rewards for actually interacting with more systems (or people from them). A player group with fingers in all regions would have the most advantages by virtue of being divers rather than by heavily controlling a large region of on security level. If you truly want a level playing field then make all resources available in all areas but to varying degrees to maintain a good reaason to have a presence in each region.
I object to one area of the player base being defined as second class or somehow worse players because they don't live in null. In the risk vs reward scenario the hisec traders who are making billions are maximising the risk reward balance in their favour and doing so in a way that *anyone* can compete if they take the time to build their capital. The condesnding view and patronization of those who choose to play in hisec is only bad for the game as it will turn people off to Eve. Existing players may well leave (yet to be seen but anecdotally likely), new players will be put off.
As for who plays the game better how can that be measured? By PvP skills? How can they be compared to station trader skills? Or exploration skills? Or how do you define how well a player does in Eve who's goal is to plex their account and not pay subscription themselves?
For a full and vibrant game economy every area should have an edge in something, a reason to exist and be frequented.
If we are going to open up S&I in null beacause it isn't viable there, then we should open up moon goo and gas in hisec, moon goo in WH's too at the appropriate reward to risk level. That will truly level the paying field. Otherwise the clear and meaningful differences between the security regions should be maintained. and enhanced to encourage players to move, to train for new skills, to try new careers. |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 11:22:00 -
[1677] - Quote
Hisec has the edge over every other area- safety.
Your point seems to be that it's ok for people being forced to hisec, but it's somehow wrong for making industry viable outside hisec.
There are currently no financial rewards for living in lower security regions. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
387
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 12:08:00 -
[1678] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:Hisec has the edge over every other area- safety.
Your point seems to be that it's ok for people being forced to hisec, but it's somehow wrong for making industry viable outside hisec.
There are currently no financial rewards for living in lower security regions.
I said the opposite, that people should have incentive to use *every* region for different reasons. I specifically stated I was fine for industry to made viable in null as I already thought it was. I also always argue against players being forced into anything whether by means of restrictions or economic coercion .
In my view a player or group of players who can operate in many regions should have an advantage over players or groups who are concentrated into one region only. Co-operation should bring rewards alongside diverse capabilities.
To be clear my home is in hi sec for convenience and safety there is a matter of using cheap fits and carrying low value of goods, otherwise you must take the correct precautions to avoid being killed. That is simply a case of adapting to the area you live in and applies to any region of space. I am also optimizing my activities to provide me with an income to support future ventures. Again this applies in any region, just with different activities being more or less profitable. I could choose to rent a moon or system in null for billions which by definition means the return on investment must be billions more to be a viable proposition. However I currently prefer my hisec/losec activities but in all likelihood I'll migrate to WH's at some point.
I have no prejudice for or against any area in space, I want *all* regions to be mutually viable for different reasons. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1497
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 13:16:00 -
[1679] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Urziel99 wrote:
You give Aryth too much credit. The goon financiers may be diabolical, even evil. But even they aren't that powerful.
The greatest trick the devil played was to convince people he did not exist. You give Aryth too much credit. He's too ****ing lazy to architect much of anything; there's a reason why I do the majority of the finance work.
He says this because all of us were doing all the work all the years previous. So very true though. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
102
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 13:23:00 -
[1680] - Quote
So, when do T2 BPOs get removed from the game, so that Invention will finally be the only way to make any T2 ship or module?
|
|
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Card Shark Industries
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 13:23:00 -
[1681] - Quote
This is just a ide so dont shoot. Make most of 0.4 sec in to a part of hi sec with 3 more sec delay on concord response time contra 0.5 sec,this will hopfully genarate more acces points to low sec and shorten the way to 0 sec,this migth be good for all in 0 sec but bring more risk to,and low sec start at 0.3 sec means less sec loss for ganking PvP,ther will still be plenty of low sec systems.and reward vs risk will be a bit better going from hi sec to 0.3 sec. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
639
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 13:26:00 -
[1682] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Anders, i made a picture to illustrate what the current situation is like, and why the slots thing should provide some enjoyment to new, more players, by providing infinite research slots. http://i.imgur.com/0M5IRDK.jpg
Welcome to Eve.
Also, more DevBlogs!
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
877
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 13:53:00 -
[1683] - Quote
CCP has steadily been removing ISK sinks by making more items player built like POS structures and fuel.
Looking at the blog's entirety, it feels to me like CCP is looking to bring back ISK sinks with these changes. Cost scaling for S&I slots is almost surely going to increase costs, draining ISK.
BPOs in POSes is almost surely going to cause some loss, meaning BPO re-purchase, which is another major ISK sink.
Next steps.... remove the "named" rat drops as has already been done for M0, perhaps replaced with more salvage that is needed for manufacture of m1-m4. Make all BPOs M1-5 player inventible. And all items M0-5 player manufactured.
Think of all the extra slot rentals of people trying to invent M4 and M5 (T2) BPOs. Think of all the extra manufacturing runs as players manufacture all mods used in the game. That's a lot more ISK drain! |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 14:12:00 -
[1684] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:CCP has steadily been removing ISK sinks by making more items player built like POS structures and fuel.
Looking at the blog's entirety, it feels to me like CCP is looking to bring back ISK sinks with these changes. Cost scaling for S&I slots is almost surely going to increase costs, draining ISK.
BPOs in POSes is almost surely going to cause some loss, meaning BPO re-purchase, which is another major ISK sink.
Next steps.... remove the "named" rat drops as has already been done for M0, perhaps replaced with more salvage that is needed for manufacture of m1-m4. Make all BPOs M1-5 player inventible. And all items M0-5 player manufactured.
Think of all the extra slot rentals of people trying to invent M4 and M5 (T2) BPOs. Think of all the extra manufacturing runs as players manufacture all mods used in the game. That's a lot more ISK drain!
Very true, but I can't see anyone wanting to build meta 1-3 items. the ability to build meta 4's would be interesting, but would confirm that looting rats (with the exception of faction, officer, and overseer wrecks) is even more a waste of time. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 15:29:00 -
[1685] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:CCP has steadily been removing ISK sinks by making more items player built like POS structures and fuel.
Looking at the blog's entirety, it feels to me like CCP is looking to bring back ISK sinks with these changes. Cost scaling for S&I slots is almost surely going to increase costs, draining ISK.
BPOs in POSes is almost surely going to cause some loss, meaning BPO re-purchase, which is another major ISK sink.
I too like to speculate.
Do you know how many high sec stations there are?
Domain has 304 Sing Laison 204 The Citadel 371 Everyshore 122 Verge Vendor 99 Derelik 49 Genesis 96
That partial list show 1,245 stations. Do all of them have slots? No, but the point is there are ALOT of stations in HS and so the price increase due to slot usage can be mitigated by simply finding a less popular system.
Plus this removes a potential barrier...a barrier that people used to overcome via setting up POS which are not costless.
So the impact of this kind of change is not so clear cut, IMO.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
388
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 15:33:00 -
[1686] - Quote
I'm guessing that POS bonuses changing will improve the POS speed for copying and production to offset the increased cost of running one compared to just using stations...unless this is a cunning plan to stop people using POS's whilst the code is replaced. I look forward to playing around with a POS though...even if I just tear it down after a month it'll be worth the learning, |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
185
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 15:50:00 -
[1687] - Quote
How will your (modified) personal standing with a npc station be tight into future refining ?
At the moment npc corporations will stop taxing your refinery use entirely at 6.67+ standings Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy Disband.
1146
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 15:51:00 -
[1688] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:So, when do T2 BPOs get removed from the game, so that Invention will finally be the only way to make any T2 ship or module?
Why do they need to be removed? Before you answer that, read the pages and pages and pages (x10^eleventy-one) of stuff Akita T has posted over the years explaining why they don't need to be. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2754
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 15:54:00 -
[1689] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:CCP has steadily been removing ISK sinks by making more items player built like POS structures and fuel.
Looking at the blog's entirety, it feels to me like CCP is looking to bring back ISK sinks with these changes. Cost scaling for S&I slots is almost surely going to increase costs, draining ISK.
BPOs in POSes is almost surely going to cause some loss, meaning BPO re-purchase, which is another major ISK sink. I too like to speculate. Do you know how many high sec stations there are? Domain has 304 Sing Laison 204 The Citadel 371 Everyshore 122 Verge Vendor 99 Derelik 49 Genesis 96 That partial list show 1,245 stations. Do all of them have slots? No, but the point is there are ALOT of stations in HS and so the price increase due to slot usage can be mitigated by simply finding a less popular system. Plus this removes a potential barrier...a barrier that people used to overcome via setting up POS which are not costless. So the impact of this kind of change is not so clear cut, IMO.
Ummm...do all of them have slots....no.....bit of an understatement. How about you do an analysis of how many high sec systems have manufacturing, or even more importantly, copy, ME, PE, and invention slots.
When all the dev blogs are released, and when the massive, massive advantage to null sec refining is factored in, high sec manufacturing will be dead. One of the chief architects of these changes openly stated that "some" high sec manufacturing will be completely unprofitable after these changes, and that subs will drop.
And oh, this is BEFORE T2 invention in high sec gets killed in the fall. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
877
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 15:56:00 -
[1690] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:[ Very true, but I can't see anyone wanting to build meta 1-3 items. the ability to build meta 4's would be interesting, but would confirm that looting rats (with the exception of faction, officer, and overseer wrecks) is even more a waste of time.
My full vision for S&I.
Remove M1-M4 drop as has already been done with M0. Replace with salvage (some you just fly up and loot, some you need salvager to get).
Modify invention to allow invention of M1-M5 BPOs from purchased M0.
Allow manufacture of all M0-M5. M0 requires minerals, as now. M1-M4 require item of lower level + salvage. M5 requires M4 + moon + PI.
So, I buy a set of 6 M0 BPOs for the same item. Let's say small cap battery as an example.
I spend 5 million ISk inventing 5 of them to M1 BPOs (5 x 1 million) I spend 20 million ISK inventing 4 of them to M2 BPOs (4 x 5 million) I spend 75 million ISK inventing 3 to M3 BPOs. (3 x 25 million) I spend 250 million ISK inventing 2 to M4 BPOs. (2 x 125 million) I spend 625 million ISK inventing 1 to M5 BPO. (maybe require other items that makes this even more expensive) (This is for small. Multiply exponentially for medium, large, etc)
Now I have a ful set of M0-M5. I use minerals to build M0. I use M0 + salvage to build M1. I use M1+ more salvage to build M2. I use M2 + more, more salvage to build M3. I use M3 + more, more, more salvage to build M4. I use M4 + moon goo + PI materials to build M5 (T2).
Modify the UI to allow automated flow of output from one step to be used as input to the next, similar to PI.
What do we gain: S&I is the way all items enter the game. No more profits being crushed by rat drops. Smoother progression in prices, making M0-M3 more attractive alternatives to M4/M5. Opportunity to rebalance salvage as it will be needed for more than just rigs. Fixed invention. Better ISK drain from manufacturing and invention. |
|
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 15:58:00 -
[1691] - Quote
The Alienator wrote:I'm going to preface this by getting a few points out there about my own experience in the game, in hopes of avoiding the "nullsec is awesome and elite and everyone else are scaredy-noobs" trolls. I've been playing the game since late 2008. I have five active subscriptions which I actually PAY for. I have lived and pewed in nullsec, lowsec & w-space for extended periods (about a year each). I've done FW. I've built & researched almost everything. I've done trade, industry, mining, exploration, etc.. I was a ninja-salvager with Suddenly Ninjas for years. Until recently I was part of Marmite (largely highsec PvP). I've ganked and been ganked. I've infiltrated corps and had corps infiltrated. I've even taken "a break" and once left the game completely for half a year. I have done it all, enjoyed most of it, made good friends and given CCP a LOT of money in exchange for that. Change happens. I've seen it countless times. Sometimes I benefited from the changes, sometimes I lost huge amounts of ISK. I've lucked into situations where changes saved me months of skill training, and have trained alts for specific purposes only to have a change render months of training useless for my purpose. Sometimes change is great. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. :) These industry changes, though, are a symptom of a larger issue that has been making Eve much less fun for me over the last few years. Mabrick captures it well: Building Better Worlds for Whom? Though I completely disagree with his idea that we should stop ganking in highsec, his other points are IMHO bang-on. Ultimately it comes down the the fact that CCP has been gradually and relentlessly trying to FORCE me to play in nullsec, partially through efforts to make highsec safer & more new-player-friendly (let's nerf ninja salvaging and add safeties to our ships). These industry changes, however, won't help drive new subs and will probably have the opposite impact by making production in highsec very low-profit (if profitable at all). CCP has been clear that they want to promote "risk vs reward" which really means "let's force experienced players to nullsec". What CCP is doing is making it impossible for me to choose to play this "sandbox" game in a way that I enjoy. They are (and have been, slowly over time) eliminating my options and effectively forcing me to play the way THEY want me to, or quit. That sucks. Look at Skyrim's success. Look at Civilization. Look at Eve's early success... Now look at *insert game with strict linear story-line here*. Remember it? No? Because they fail! People like choice and hate being forced into things. We get enough of that in RL. I've done nullsec & IMHO it sucks. If I wanted to be part of some mega-organization with a management structure driven by 20-somethings with power/self-esteem issues, I'd quit the game and spend my free time at work instead. I didn't join Eve to have that experience. I didn't join Eve to pay "rent" to a mega-corp for the privilege of getting access to a third-rate system with an empty local or to spend 12 hours in a TiDi slow-mo battle. I joined Eve to be my own person - I joined to explore a sandbox, make my own decisions, build relationships, make stuff, buy stuff, sell stuff, profit and to destroy other peoples stuff. I've been to nullsec. I've got the t-shirt. It's not fun for me. And that's ok. There are lots of people out there that have a different opinion of nullsec. It's their choice to live and play in nullsec. It's my choice to live in highsec and make forays into low, null and w-space when I want to. That's the key word here, CHOICE. Changes like this and CCP's 'risk vs reward' piling-on of benefits for nullsec play, have gotten ridiculous. I thought it was bad when they led all those lambs to slaughter during that live-event a few months ago, but it just doesn't stop. And nullsec is not nearly as "risky" as some like to claim. Nullsec can be very very dull and in some instances safer than highsec (depending on how/where you play). If it would drive new subs I could buy into changes like this (or at least chalk it up to 's*** happens, get over it'), but these changes aren't about that. They're aimed squarely at FORCING experienced players into null. Three of my accounts are focused on the highsec industry value-chain I've built and love managing. I can pick it up when I have a few spare minutes (unlike PvP, which I only do when I have time to do it properly). I have 100+ billion invested in BPO's, towers, mining ships, stock & transport ships but even without the details I can see that the only way to maintain these activities profitably is to move to null. Not by choice, but as a direct result of the changes CCP is proposing. Since I don't enjoy doing industry in nullsec my choices come down to maintaining an unprofitable/borderline business in highsec or leaving the business and focusing on other stuff. I'm resigned to leaving the business - my free time is too valuable (cost & risk vs reward). When the game time runs out on those three industry-focused accounts they won't be renewed. I've stopped training my industry and transport toons and am breeding toons on those accounts for sale. The stations are on the market. The BPO's will be researched until after the summer changes, then sold. I'm not rage-quitting - I'm keeping 2 accounts for PvP - but Eve no longer gets my (frequent) casual game time. In the last week alone I've bought The Stick of Truth, Total War and other games. They give me CHOICES and are a really fun way to spend 30-60 minutes a day. Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad.
Listen to him I'll be unsubbing my 3 Indy accounts too! |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
877
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 16:03:00 -
[1692] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:So, when do T2 BPOs get removed from the game, so that Invention will finally be the only way to make any T2 ship or module?
I think removal of T2 BPO is the exact opposite of what should be done.
I think invention should be changed to allow the invention of T2 BPOs (with a lot of cost and effort). Problems solved.
And yes, there are problems with T2 BPOs, despite the claims of the current T2 BPO holders. The frustration and hate they create amongst newer players, who will never have an opportunity to enter the lottery, is a VERY real problem, as much as the bitter vets try to dismiss it.
|
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 16:21:00 -
[1693] - Quote
Also whoever says that after summer HS industrialist just need to take the hit of producing in HS doesn't understand how low profit margins already are for T1 production, for T2 ships almost none existent.
So this doesn't give me the option to produce in HS unless I'm willing to lose isk, we are just being force to move to 0.0 and I love WH space and pvp with a side of HS indy to pay for my pvp, I don't want to be part of a 0.0 Blob.
Also alot of 0.0 is actually safer than HS |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
25
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 16:28:00 -
[1694] - Quote
Some proposed changes make sense, but some are not really thought out. The removal of standings for POSes is a bad idea both because it wil promote POS spamming and because it's unfair to the people who endured those long standing grinds CCP forced beforehand. The need to phisically move BPs is also going to be a terrible change, wasting players' time and adding danger with no tangible reward. it would make sense if a phisically moved BP would provide an advantage of some kind (shorter times, for example) versus the comfort of remote action, but as it's been noted already, it's again unfair against people who trained specific skills, but even more it's farcical to introduce in New Eden, Anno Domini 23341, an activity which is outdated on old XXI century Earth.
I also agree with those noting how hisec will become a terrible place for industry, and I don't think "forcing" people to move to nullsec or Wh space is a good thing per se although I'm all in favour of more activity in Wh space because I live there. I don't have any industrial activity myself because i find it already too boring and low-profit for the kind of commitment I could put into it, but people need to be free to choose their playstyle regarding their prefrences, not depending on the idea that older players MUST go to more risky space. If a player likes to play just for some relax, and can't commit to hardcore mode, let him be free to do it, doing something useful to the whole economy and EVE landscape while earning enough to have still some fun. If you take the ISk entirely out of highsec, people living there won't be able to allow some shiny loss and end up having no fun with the game overall. Regarding this, I wonder why it's still so easy to earn tons of money running hisec incursions while you plan to make highsec industry such a low-margin, time intensive chore... |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
102
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 16:33:00 -
[1695] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Irregessa wrote:So, when do T2 BPOs get removed from the game, so that Invention will finally be the only way to make any T2 ship or module?
Why do they need to be removed? Before you answer that, read the pages and pages and pages (x10^eleventy-one) of stuff Akita T has posted over the years explaining why they don't need to be.
Okay, read some of his posts regarding T2 BPOs, and I see it as two sides of the same coin, though he doesn't present it quite as such. His argument seems to be more along the lines that Invention needs to be buffed so that you don't always have some negative value to ME/PE, as compared to T2 BPOs that have at least 0/0. That seems to me to be the same as saying that T2 BPOs (for items that have them) will always be better than anything invented. His solution is to improve the Invention process. I understand that people put a lot of time and isk into researching T2 BPOs so that they have nice double digit positive ME and PEs. However, that doesn't negate the fact that those who have T2 BPOs will always have a competitive advantage over anyone who wasn't playing the game at the time of the lotteries. I cannot ever invent a Scimitar BPC and manufacture the ship for as little as someone who holds even a base 0/0 Scimitar BPO can.
If CCP revamps Invention such that I can compete with the existing T2 BPOs, then that would solve that issue, to a large extent. But the present situation has existed for, what, 5+ years? Something should have been done a long time ago but, well, :CCP:, and it appears that nothing will be done until at least Fall/Winter. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
877
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 16:47:00 -
[1696] - Quote
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:Listen to him I'll be unsubbing my 3 Indy accounts too!
Risk v. Reward is an EXCELLENT concept.
But, Risk vs. Reward is a 2-edged sword. It means that CCP recognizes there is a significant portion of the potential player base that is risk averse. For them, the profits should be less than those willing to take risk.
CCP's first attempts to implement risk v. reward focused on increasing rewards for those willing to take risks.
Pretty much across the board miserable failures, ALL of them.
Attempts to increase profitability of null ratting resulted in massive inflow of ISK to teh game, and had to be nerfed.
Removal of null mineral bottlenecks on availability crushed profits as mining in null is no more risky than high sec.
Things like profits from FW PvP were exploited and had to be plugged.
It has shown to be virtually impossible to increase profitability in null, without creating more problems, because players are able to make null pretty darn safe... or able to exploit loopholes in other attempts to reward risk.
So, now the risk averse players are rightly concerned that CCP will turn its attention away from looking for ways to make null more profitable, and look to crush porfits for the risk averse in high sec.
It is a legitimate concern.
I get wanting to implement risk v. reward. The problem is finding a way to do it that 1) can't be exploited 2) doesn't create more problems 3) doesn't drive away the risk aerse, which make up a huge portion of the player base.
Good luck with that CCP! |
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 17:00:00 -
[1697] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Urziel99 wrote:I'm curious to hear what bonuses could possibly justify me putting a 1.1 billion isk battleship BPO at risk, in a tower that's worth less than that by itself?
CCP has been going on a tear of late, devaluing things earned by veteran players. First it was refining SP (Which I want back, now that It'll only be half as effective as the skills I injected.), now NPC standings and remote jobs. I've never suspected CCP had it out for industrialists and miners, then we lost grav sites and it's been downhill ever since. Devaluing skills? Are you kidding me? You had to train jack-all to get perfect refine in hisec, compared to my nulsec refining alt that had to train all but the specialty skills to 5, the specialty skills to 4, plug in a 1% refining implant, and refine at an improved refinery, because only certain Conquerable Outposts have 50% refineries. You deserve no reimbursement. Train the skills like everybody else. Why would you put your BPO in a POS? Do the same darn thing you're already doing. The only thing you can do now that you won't be able to do this summer is remote ME/PE research. So put your BPO in a corp hanger at a research station and do that there. While you're at it, do your copying there, too. Take BPCs, move to production site. 2ez. NPC standings requirements are only being removed for POS anchoring. Everything else still applies. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Er, excuse me, but isn't Low and nul sec SUPOSED to be harder/tougher in every sense, isn't that part of the "challenge" for those of us who whish to take it. How odd to come across a complaint about that. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
414
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 17:36:00 -
[1698] - Quote
Here is a helpful posting hint for this and future threads: using your subscription as a threat to attempt to coerce change in the game is a very poor tactic. No one likes to be threatened; such an unwise gambit runs the very high risk of the party being coerced simply writing off your threat as an eventuality and soldiering on without actually considering any meat that your argument may contain. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
877
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 17:39:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:Also whoever says that after summer HS industrialist just need to take the hit of producing in HS doesn't understand how low profit margins already are for T1 production, for T2 ships almost none existent.
So this doesn't give me the option to produce in HS unless I'm willing to lose isk, we are just being force to move to 0.0 and I love WH space and pvp with a side of HS indy to pay for my pvp, I don't want to be part of a 0.0 Blob.
Also alot of 0.0 is actually safer than HS
Clearly, prices will adjust to higher input costs, to maintain the same slim profit margins. That is the beauty of supply and demand. If it is unprofitable, you won't supply, prices adjust, then it becomes profitable, you start supplying again.
People are not going to start manufacturing jump freighter loads of M0 in null, just to avoid station slot fees, then pay the fuel to jump the freighter in. AND, if it is profitable enough to do so, then high sec manufacturing will stop, slot prices will fall, until it reaches equilibrium with the cost of jump fuel to bring in all that null manufactured goods, and then manufacturing can resume in high sec, on the items that are too bulky to be profitable for jump freighter transport..
As for 0.0 being safer than high, true... which is why the null minerals sell for the same profit/hour of high sec ores + jump freighter costs. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1124
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 17:42:00 -
[1700] - Quote
D'Kelle wrote:Er, excuse me, but isn't Low and nul sec SUPOSED to be harder/tougher in every sense, isn't that part of the "challenge" for those of us who whish to take it. How odd to come across a complaint about that. No, that's not what it's about per my understanding. It's about greater player initiated dangers, but not space ghettos. There is no reason low/null should have to work under mechanical disadvantages on top of that. |
|
Kaius Fero
36
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 18:28:00 -
[1701] - Quote
Querns wrote:Here is a helpful posting hint for this and future threads: using your subscription as a threat to attempt to coerce change in the game is a very poor tactic. No one likes to be threatened; such an unwise gambit runs the very high risk of the party being coerced simply writing off your threat as an eventuality and soldiering on without actually considering any meat that your argument may contain. You're just a slave, your not supposed to think about stuff... is why the term player/customer feedback is unknown tou you. Chill. |
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
29
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 18:37:00 -
[1702] - Quote
Querns wrote:Here is a helpful posting hint for this and future threads: using your subscription as a threat to attempt to coerce change in the game is a very poor tactic. No one likes to be threatened; such an unwise gambit runs the very high risk of the party being coerced simply writing off your threat as an eventuality and soldiering on without actually considering any meat that your argument may contain.
Is not a thread is reality, with all this changes I have to use for my HS accounts, and I'm a WH person and not planing to be a null bear, for that reason I have no reason to keep those accounts active |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
414
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 18:55:00 -
[1703] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Querns wrote:Here is a helpful posting hint for this and future threads: using your subscription as a threat to attempt to coerce change in the game is a very poor tactic. No one likes to be threatened; such an unwise gambit runs the very high risk of the party being coerced simply writing off your threat as an eventuality and soldiering on without actually considering any meat that your argument may contain. You're just a slave, your not supposed to think about stuff... is why the term player/customer feedback is unknown tou you. Chill. "I am mad, therefore I am canceling my subscription" is not feedback, it's a threat. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 18:59:00 -
[1704] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:CCP has steadily been removing ISK sinks by making more items player built like POS structures and fuel.
Looking at the blog's entirety, it feels to me like CCP is looking to bring back ISK sinks with these changes. Cost scaling for S&I slots is almost surely going to increase costs, draining ISK.
BPOs in POSes is almost surely going to cause some loss, meaning BPO re-purchase, which is another major ISK sink. I too like to speculate. Do you know how many high sec stations there are? Domain has 304 Sing Laison 204 The Citadel 371 Everyshore 122 Verge Vendor 99 Derelik 49 Genesis 96 That partial list show 1,245 stations. Do all of them have slots? No, but the point is there are ALOT of stations in HS and so the price increase due to slot usage can be mitigated by simply finding a less popular system. Plus this removes a potential barrier...a barrier that people used to overcome via setting up POS which are not costless. So the impact of this kind of change is not so clear cut, IMO. Ummm...do all of them have slots....no.....bit of an understatement. How about you do an analysis of how many high sec systems have manufacturing, or even more importantly, copy, ME, PE, and invention slots. When all the dev blogs are released, and when the massive, massive advantage to null sec refining is factored in, high sec manufacturing will be dead. One of the chief architects of these changes openly stated that "some" high sec manufacturing will be completely unprofitable after these changes, and that subs will drop. And oh, this is BEFORE T2 invention in high sec gets killed in the fall.
Yeah because access to slots will be handed out to anyone who asks in null.
|
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
102
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 19:06:00 -
[1705] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Yeah because access to slots will be handed out to anyone who asks in null.
Just looking at NPC Delve, there are three stations with research slots and nine with factory slots. No ring kissing required.
Yes, I realize that these stations won't have the same benefits as player-built ones in nullsec, but I bet they won't be as heavily utilized as the high sec ones, and they are right at the source for the best minerals. Risk vs. reward and all that. |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Aliastra Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 19:10:00 -
[1706] - Quote
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:The Alienator wrote:I'm I've been playing the game since late 2008. I have five active subscriptions which I actually PAY for. I have lived and pewed in nullsec, lowsec & w-space for extended periods (about a year each). I've done FW. I've built & researched almost everything. I've done trade, industry, mining, exploration, etc.. I was a ninja-salvager with Suddenly Ninjas for years. Until recently I was part of Marmite (largely highsec PvP). I've ganked and been ganked. I've infiltrated corps and had corps infiltrated. I've even taken "a break" and once left the game completely for half a year. I have done it all, enjoyed most of it, made good friends and given CCP a LOT of money in exchange for that. Change happens. I've seen it countless times. Sometimes I benefited from the changes, sometimes I lost huge amounts of ISK. I've lucked into situations where changes saved me months of skill training, and have trained alts for specific purposes only to have a change render months of training useless for my purpose. Sometimes change is great. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. :) These industry changes, though, are a symptom of a larger issue that has been making Eve much less fun for me over the last few years. Mabrick captures it well: Building Better Worlds for Whom? Though I completely disagree with his idea that we should stop ganking in highsec, his other points are IMHO bang-on. Ultimately it comes down the the fact that CCP has been gradually and relentlessly trying to FORCE me to play in nullsec, partially through efforts to make highsec safer & more new-player-friendly (let's nerf ninja salvaging and add safeties to our ships). These industry changes, however, won't help drive new subs and will probably have the opposite impact by making production in highsec very low-profit (if profitable at all). CCP has been clear that they want to promote "risk vs reward" which really means "let's force experienced players to nullsec". What CCP is doing is making it impossible for me to choose to play this "sandbox" game in a way that I enjoy. They are (and have been, slowly over time) eliminating my options and effectively forcing me to play the way THEY want me to, or quit. That sucks. Look at Skyrim's success. Look at Civilization. Look at Eve's early success... Now look at *insert game with strict linear story-line here*. Remember it? No? Because they fail! People like choice and hate being forced into things. We get enough of that in RL. I've done nullsec & IMHO it sucks. If I wanted to be part of some mega-organization with a management structure driven by 20-somethings with power/self-esteem issues, I'd quit the game and spend my free time at work instead. I didn't join Eve to have that experience. I didn't join Eve to pay "rent" to a mega-corp for the privilege of getting access to a third-rate system with an empty local or to spend 12 hours in a TiDi slow-mo battle. I joined Eve to be my own person - I joined to explore a sandbox, make my own decisions, build relationships, make stuff, buy stuff, sell stuff, profit and to destroy other peoples stuff. I've been to nullsec. I've got the t-shirt. It's not fun for me. And that's ok. There are lots of people out there that have a different opinion of nullsec. It's their choice to live and play in nullsec. It's my choice to live in highsec and make forays into low, null and w-space when I want to. That's the key word here, CHOICE. Changes like this and CCP's 'risk vs reward' piling-on of benefits for nullsec play, have gotten ridiculous. I thought it was bad when they led all those lambs to slaughter during that live-event a few months ago, but it just doesn't stop. And nullsec is not nearly as "risky" as some like to claim. Nullsec can be very very dull and in some instances safer than highsec (depending on how/where you play). If it would drive new subs I could buy into changes like this (or at least chalk it up to 's*** happens, get over it'), but these changes aren't about that. They're aimed squarely at FORCING experienced players into null. Three of my accounts are focused on the highsec industry value-chain I've built and love managing. I can pick it up when I have a few spare minutes (unlike PvP, which I only do when I have time to do it properly). I have 100+ billion invested in BPO's, towers, mining ships, stock & transport ships but even without the details I can see that the only way to maintain these activities profitably is to move to null. Not by choice, but as a direct result of the changes CCP is proposing. Since I don't enjoy doing industry in nullsec my choices come down to maintaining an unprofitable/borderline business in highsec or leaving the business and focusing on other stuff. I'm resigned to leaving the business - my free time is too valuable (cost & risk vs reward). When the game time runs out on those three industry-focused accounts they won't be renewed. I've stopped training my industry and transport toons and am breeding toons on those accounts for sale. The stations are on the market. The BPO's will be researched until after the summer changes, then sold. I'm not rage-quitting - I'm keeping 2 accounts for PvP - but Eve no longer gets my (frequent) casual game time. In the last week alone I've bought The Stick of Truth, Total War and other games. They give me CHOICES and are a really fun way to spend 30-60 minutes a day. Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad. Listen to him I'll be unsubbing my 3 Indy accounts too! 2 gone. to more to unsub.no life for large scale industry in hi sec anymore. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 20:18:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Zappity wrote:Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.
Looking forward to the figures dev blog. As you mention it... since CONCORD is not able to provide direct chat access in W-space, how is the SCC or any other NPC corp (assuming that the fees for jobs are paid to these NPC entities) supposed to collect the fees from W-space POS? Of course, it's just a game and logic only goes so far; but how could the SCC reach W-space to collect fees when it's mighty mother company CONCORD cannot access W-space?
The ISK to be collected from all the POS's in the new POS tax collection regime is stored in a nano-electric processor and beamed out over the distances of space using a few electronic parts and a hyper-synaptic fiber and focused with a laser focusing crystal and radio frequency crystal. In order to not burn out the Hyper-synaptic fiber(due to the great distances the beam must fire) the beam can only transmitted once every 24 hours. Naturally all these parts will now need to be added to all new POS structure builds. Or should we leave the lore well enough alone and say that towers have enough steps already to make the final product ? |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
31
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 20:21:00 -
[1708] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:admiral root wrote:Irregessa wrote:So, when do T2 BPOs get removed from the game, so that Invention will finally be the only way to make any T2 ship or module?
Why do they need to be removed? Before you answer that, read the pages and pages and pages (x10^eleventy-one) of stuff Akita T has posted over the years explaining why they don't need to be. Okay, read some of his posts regarding T2 BPOs, and I see it as two sides of the same coin, though he doesn't present it quite as such. His argument seems to be more along the lines that Invention needs to be buffed so that you don't always have some negative value to ME/PE, as compared to T2 BPOs that have at least 0/0. That seems to me to be the same as saying that T2 BPOs (for items that have them) will always be better than anything invented. His solution is to improve the Invention process. I understand that people put a lot of time and isk into researching T2 BPOs so that they have nice double digit positive ME and PEs. However, that doesn't negate the fact that those who have T2 BPOs will always have a competitive advantage over anyone who wasn't playing the game at the time of the lotteries. I cannot ever invent a Scimitar BPC and manufacture the ship for as little as someone who holds even a base 0/0 Scimitar BPO can. If CCP revamps Invention such that I can compete with the existing T2 BPOs, then that would solve that issue, to a large extent. But the present situation has existed for, what, 5+ years? Something should have been done a long time ago but, well, :CCP:, and it appears that nothing will be done until at least Fall/Winter.
I have yet to make any T2 item and net less than 22-25%, it doesn't bother me if someone else can earn 35-45% on the same item. True there are a few items that the low volume traded gives T2 BPO holders a competitive advantage, these are the exception not the rule. For every one of these items there are 50 items whose daily trade volume makes it impossible for T2 BPO holders to produce enough goods to meet the demand, and these items make invention more profitable long term. The only advantage T2 BPO's have without a doubt is the reduced effort to produce said item as there is no invention step involved.
I owned a T2 Quake L BPO for about 4 months and honestly I make more isk running invention on Titanium L BPC's in 1 month than the entirety of my ownership of the BPO. They are a very expensive novelty with build in manufacturing and copy limitations that make them irrelevant to dedicated industrialists. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2760
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 20:29:00 -
[1709] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:CCP has steadily been removing ISK sinks by making more items player built like POS structures and fuel.
Looking at the blog's entirety, it feels to me like CCP is looking to bring back ISK sinks with these changes. Cost scaling for S&I slots is almost surely going to increase costs, draining ISK.
BPOs in POSes is almost surely going to cause some loss, meaning BPO re-purchase, which is another major ISK sink. I too like to speculate. Do you know how many high sec stations there are? Domain has 304 Sing Laison 204 The Citadel 371 Everyshore 122 Verge Vendor 99 Derelik 49 Genesis 96 That partial list show 1,245 stations. Do all of them have slots? No, but the point is there are ALOT of stations in HS and so the price increase due to slot usage can be mitigated by simply finding a less popular system. Plus this removes a potential barrier...a barrier that people used to overcome via setting up POS which are not costless. So the impact of this kind of change is not so clear cut, IMO. Ummm...do all of them have slots....no.....bit of an understatement. How about you do an analysis of how many high sec systems have manufacturing, or even more importantly, copy, ME, PE, and invention slots. When all the dev blogs are released, and when the massive, massive advantage to null sec refining is factored in, high sec manufacturing will be dead. One of the chief architects of these changes openly stated that "some" high sec manufacturing will be completely unprofitable after these changes, and that subs will drop. And oh, this is BEFORE T2 invention in high sec gets killed in the fall. Yeah because access to slots will be handed out to anyone who asks in null.
And the cost of renting a system with a station in it just went way up. Or I could be wrong, since I never dove that deep into the serf structure. Does the goon shell exec alliance that runs their rental empire retain ownership of the stations within the systems of the rental empire, or does the serf that rents the particular system inherit the ownership of a station, if one is in that system?
If #1, and the goons, through their rental empire exec corp, retain ownership of each station in their rental empire, they will simply tax each slot (as I predicted over a year ago) at some rate, and the cash flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership. If #2, and the serfs actually "own" the station in the system they are renting, then rental costs for those systems with stations just went way way up, and the money still flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership.
Either way, this entire overhaul was designed to enrich the cartel leadership, on a massive scale, at the expense of every high sec and low sec industrialist. But of course, they had no hand in the design, and what CCP has designed , by pure coincidence only, is perfect for their rental construct. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
31
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 20:31:00 -
[1710] - Quote
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:The Alienator wrote:I'm I've been playing the game since late 2008. I have five active subscriptions which I actually PAY for. I have lived and pewed in nullsec, lowsec & w-space for extended periods (about a year each). I've done FW. I've built & researched almost everything. I've done trade, industry, mining, exploration, etc.. I was a ninja-salvager with Suddenly Ninjas for years. Until recently I was part of Marmite (largely highsec PvP). I've ganked and been ganked. I've infiltrated corps and had corps infiltrated. I've even taken "a break" and once left the game completely for half a year. I have done it all, enjoyed most of it, made good friends and given CCP a LOT of money in exchange for that. Change happens. I've seen it countless times. Sometimes I benefited from the changes, sometimes I lost huge amounts of ISK. I've lucked into situations where changes saved me months of skill training, and have trained alts for specific purposes only to have a change render months of training useless for my purpose. Sometimes change is great. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. :) These industry changes, though, are a symptom of a larger issue that has been making Eve much less fun for me over the last few years. Mabrick captures it well: Building Better Worlds for Whom? Though I completely disagree with his idea that we should stop ganking in highsec, his other points are IMHO bang-on. Ultimately it comes down the the fact that CCP has been gradually and relentlessly trying to FORCE me to play in nullsec, partially through efforts to make highsec safer & more new-player-friendly (let's nerf ninja salvaging and add safeties to our ships). These industry changes, however, won't help drive new subs and will probably have the opposite impact by making production in highsec very low-profit (if profitable at all). CCP has been clear that they want to promote "risk vs reward" which really means "let's force experienced players to nullsec". What CCP is doing is making it impossible for me to choose to play this "sandbox" game in a way that I enjoy. They are (and have been, slowly over time) eliminating my options and effectively forcing me to play the way THEY want me to, or quit. That sucks. Look at Skyrim's success. Look at Civilization. Look at Eve's early success... Now look at *insert game with strict linear story-line here*. Remember it? No? Because they fail! People like choice and hate being forced into things. We get enough of that in RL. I've done nullsec & IMHO it sucks. If I wanted to be part of some mega-organization with a management structure driven by 20-somethings with power/self-esteem issues, I'd quit the game and spend my free time at work instead. I didn't join Eve to have that experience. I didn't join Eve to pay "rent" to a mega-corp for the privilege of getting access to a third-rate system with an empty local or to spend 12 hours in a TiDi slow-mo battle. I joined Eve to be my own person - I joined to explore a sandbox, make my own decisions, build relationships, make stuff, buy stuff, sell stuff, profit and to destroy other peoples stuff. I've been to nullsec. I've got the t-shirt. It's not fun for me. And that's ok. There are lots of people out there that have a different opinion of nullsec. It's their choice to live and play in nullsec. It's my choice to live in highsec and make forays into low, null and w-space when I want to. That's the key word here, CHOICE. Changes like this and CCP's 'risk vs reward' piling-on of benefits for nullsec play, have gotten ridiculous. I thought it was bad when they led all those lambs to slaughter during that live-event a few months ago, but it just doesn't stop. And nullsec is not nearly as "risky" as some like to claim. Nullsec can be very very dull and in some instances safer than highsec (depending on how/where you play). If it would drive new subs I could buy into changes like this (or at least chalk it up to 's*** happens, get over it'), but these changes aren't about that. They're aimed squarely at FORCING experienced players into null. Three of my accounts are focused on the highsec industry value-chain I've built and love managing. I can pick it up when I have a few spare minutes (unlike PvP, which I only do when I have time to do it properly). I have 100+ billion invested in BPO's, towers, mining ships, stock & transport ships but even without the details I can see that the only way to maintain these activities profitably is to move to null. Not by choice, but as a direct result of the changes CCP is proposing. Since I don't enjoy doing industry in nullsec my choices come down to maintaining an unprofitable/borderline business in highsec or leaving the business and focusing on other stuff. I'm resigned to leaving the business - my free time is too valuable (cost & risk vs reward). When the game time runs out on those three industry-focused accounts they won't be renewed. I've stopped training my industry and transport toons and am breeding toons on those accounts for sale. The stations are on the market. The BPO's will be researched until after the summer changes, then sold. I'm not rage-quitting - I'm keeping 2 accounts for PvP - but Eve no longer gets my (frequent) casual game time. In the last week alone I've bought The Stick of Truth, Total War and other games. They give me CHOICES and are a really fun way to spend 30-60 minutes a day. Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad. Listen to him I'll be unsubbing my 3 Indy accounts too! 2 gone. to more to unsub.no life for large scale industry in hi sec anymore.
Impatiently waiting for more details before I begin my 4 account sellof of Pos's, BPO's, assets and toons. Taking a hard look at ESO and others.
|
|
Teela Browne
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 20:33:00 -
[1711] - Quote
So after summer in order to pay my subscription and my Main's ships I won-¦t need to deal with a late 90-¦s interface to earn ISK but I will have to deal with nullsec bull****, logistics, CEOs, corporate thefts, disbands, death zonning, and all the cr*p I hate and avoid with my main, great changes, good work CCP it's all I wanted/dreamed/espected... Good bye industry, hello warpstabbed FW frigate. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
877
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 20:34:00 -
[1712] - Quote
Querns wrote:Here is a helpful posting hint for this and future threads: using your subscription as a threat to attempt to coerce change in the game is a very poor tactic. No one likes to be threatened; such an unwise gambit runs the very high risk of the party being coerced simply writing off your threat as an eventuality and soldiering on without actually considering any meat that your argument may contain.
I am not so sure.
Let's say that CCP proposed a change to get rid if ship mining, and make mineral and ice collection like moon mining. Plant a POS and a harvester, wait a week, empty the silos.
Well, then I'd have to inform CCP that there would be no reason for me to have 4 accounts that I use for asteroid and ice mining.
If it is used as a threat, that is one thing.
It you can explain why the changing game mechanic will remove the need for multiple accounts, that is another thing.
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
877
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 20:44:00 -
[1713] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
And the cost of renting a system with a station in it just went way up. Or I could be wrong, since I never dove that deep into the serf structure. Does the goon shell exec alliance that runs their rental empire retain ownership of the stations within the systems of the rental empire, or does the serf that rents the particular system inherit the ownership of a station, if one is in that system?
If #1, and the goons, through their rental empire exec corp, retain ownership of each station in their rental empire, they will simply tax each slot (as I predicted over a year ago) at some rate, and the cash flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership. If #2, and the serfs actually "own" the station in the system they are renting, then rental costs for those systems with stations just went way way up, and the money still flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership.
Either way, this entire overhaul was designed to enrich the cartel leadership, on a massive scale, at the expense of every high sec and low sec industrialist. But of course, they had no hand in the design, and what CCP has designed , by pure coincidence only, is perfect for their rental construct.
System owners could already set the cost of installing jobs at null outposts. Didn't matter who owns the system, the cash eventually rolled up to the masters that had the most titans so could control space.
IF, and I've not seen definitive that this new usage based tax will apply to outposts, the cost scaling for usage is going to apply to null, it will likely be a tax in addition to the installation cost.
|
Kaius Fero
36
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 20:48:00 -
[1714] - Quote
Anders Madeveda wrote:... Impatiently waiting for more details before I begin my 4 account sellof of Pos's, BPO's, assets and toons. Taking a hard look at ESO and others.
I fail to understand what's so attractive at ESO... you don't even have a market there... GW2 is far more superior. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1265
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 21:37:00 -
[1715] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:
IF, and I've not seen definitive that this new usage based tax will apply to outposts, the cost scaling for usage is going to apply to null, it will likely be a tax in addition to the installation cost.
It's been confirmed that the scaling 'cost' will apply to Null Sec by a blue post somewhere in this thread. The owners can also set a tax cost.
To all the rage quiters, while I do have serious concerns myself about a few of the details simply handing the keys of EVE to the current Null Sec blob before they have worked out how to break the great blue doughnut with better Sov mechanics, there is so much change occurring that no-one can accurately predict exactly how it will settle. High Sec Industry may still be a highly valid profession, it may even become more profitable. T2 Invention may still remain effective. We have four more dev blogs of numbers to go, and the numbers don't tell the whole story because people are involved anyway.
So wait and find out how it settles three months after summer. Then speak with your wallets if you feel you have been hurt, but speak knowingly, not in thoughtless rage. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2762
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:05:00 -
[1716] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:
IF, and I've not seen definitive that this new usage based tax will apply to outposts, the cost scaling for usage is going to apply to null, it will likely be a tax in addition to the installation cost.
It's been confirmed that the scaling 'cost' will apply to Null Sec by a blue post somewhere in this thread. The owners can also set a tax cost. To all the rage quiters, while I do have serious concerns myself about a few of the details simply handing the keys of EVE to the current Null Sec blob before they have worked out how to break the great blue doughnut with better Sov mechanics, there is so much change occurring that no-one can accurately predict exactly how it will settle. High Sec Industry may still be a highly valid profession, it may even become more profitable. T2 Invention may still remain effective. We have four more dev blogs of numbers to go, and the numbers don't tell the whole story because people are involved anyway. So wait and find out how it settles three months after summer. Then speak with your wallets if you feel you have been hurt, but speak knowingly, not in thoughtless rage.
You sound like a dev's alt, praying that most of the people who have said they are unsubbing are really not, because if even half of them do, oh boy.
As for high sec being more profitable, mathematically impossible, given what the dev's have stated. Also, T2 invention is getting the same application as all other high sec nerfs in the fall/winter.
Lastly, one of the chief architects of this null sec win has already stated that a subscription drop is expected, in exchange for "long term game viability". Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:06:00 -
[1717] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Yeah because access to slots will be handed out to anyone who asks in null. Just looking at NPC Delve, there are three stations with research slots and nine with factory slots. No ring kissing required. Yes, I realize that these stations won't have the same benefits as player-built ones in nullsec, but I bet they won't be as heavily utilized as the high sec ones, and they are right at the source for the best minerals. Risk vs. reward and all that.
And the ratio of NPC null stations to HS is what exactly?
And the costs wont escalate in NPC null?
And your last sentence...it sort of proves my point, you know this part, "but I bet they won't be as heavily utilized as the high sec ones".
And where exactly your going to sell all of the massive amount of goods that are going to be produced in null? In null? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1124
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:19:00 -
[1718] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:
IF, and I've not seen definitive that this new usage based tax will apply to outposts, the cost scaling for usage is going to apply to null, it will likely be a tax in addition to the installation cost.
It's been confirmed that the scaling 'cost' will apply to Null Sec by a blue post somewhere in this thread. The owners can also set a tax cost. To all the rage quiters, while I do have serious concerns myself about a few of the details simply handing the keys of EVE to the current Null Sec blob before they have worked out how to break the great blue doughnut with better Sov mechanics, there is so much change occurring that no-one can accurately predict exactly how it will settle. High Sec Industry may still be a highly valid profession, it may even become more profitable. T2 Invention may still remain effective. We have four more dev blogs of numbers to go, and the numbers don't tell the whole story because people are involved anyway. So wait and find out how it settles three months after summer. Then speak with your wallets if you feel you have been hurt, but speak knowingly, not in thoughtless rage. You sound like a dev's alt, praying that most of the people who have said they are unsubbing are really not, because if even half of them do, oh boy. As for high sec being more profitable, mathematically impossible, given what the dev's have stated. Also, T2 invention is getting the same application as all other high sec nerfs in the fall/winter. Lastly, one of the chief architects of this null sec win has already stated that a subscription drop is expected, in exchange for "long term game viability". Yeah, I can believe people will leave over this. Though I'm willing to bet most of it is from being ill informed and making kneejerk reactions to claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. In the end nullsec won't magically sprout markets that serve any non-blue demand, which means they still eat transport costs. Unless I'm misunderstanding and it's more than the slot costs that are being affected by the 14% increase could very well be close to eaten by transport costs of high volume goods.
Really the only nullsec advantage for manufacturing I'm seeing is a direct result of the lower population there, rather then some mechanical baked in advantage. Minerals will still be sold to the highest payer, so we won't see a massive difference in cost there, meaning material costs will be similar for both high and null producers. Not seeing what the big deal is.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2762
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:22:00 -
[1719] - Quote
And the very best part of these nerfs, the ever so sweet part of these nerfs, is this:
One of the largest demographics hurt by this, the casual high sec player, they don't even know this assault on their playstyle is coming, because they don't even follow the forums and dev blogs.
The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.
And a few months after that, when the the people that got shell-shocked in June, when their subs start running out, then we shall witness the true brilliance and beauty of this war on high sec, in its full glory.
Bravo null sec cartels, bravo. A true coup. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:30:00 -
[1720] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: If #1, and the goons, through their rental empire exec corp, retain ownership of each station in their rental empire, they will simply tax each slot (as I predicted over a year ago) at some rate, and the cash flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership. If #2, and the serfs actually "own" the station in the system they are renting, then rental costs for those systems with stations just went way way up, and the money still flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership.
1. Costs will be going up in those staitons too. Null is not exempt from the increasing slot costs.
2. There can only be 1 outpost/station in a PC owned system.
Given 1 and 2 the advantage going to null is...dubious.
I've seen this kind of thing before. A change is proposed, those who stand to lose their economic profits whine, complain, beat their chests and threaten to quite while at the same time predicting economic Armageddon. But we have yet to see it...even when CCP has buggered it (e.g. technetium).
Also, while null is close to moon goo and the better mins, it is not a great source of things like tritanium. Maybe null miners will mine more of it (why when you have access to ABCs and solid sources of ice?), but with the module compression nerf getting the low ends may still be an issue in null.
So I find this problem some what dubious and just can't help that it is just self-serving bull dung being shoveled by somebody upset that they are losing an economic profits.
Quote:Either way, this entire overhaul was designed to enrich the cartel leadership, on a massive scale, at the expense of every high sec and low sec industrialist. But of course, they had no hand in the design, and what CCP has designed , by pure coincidence only, is perfect for their rental construct.
Yeah, increased competition...such a horrible, horrible thing. CCP protect my economic profits!!!
Or let me put it this way....
Everyone complaining about these changes are really complaining about having more competition.
That its. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1124
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:30:00 -
[1721] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:And the very best part of these nerfs, the ever so sweet part of these nerfs, is this:
One of the largest demographics hurt by this, the casual high sec player, they don't even know this assault on their playstyle is coming, because they don't even follow the forums and dev blogs.
The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.
And a few months after that, when the the people that got shell-shocked in June, when their subs start running out, then we shall witness the true brilliance and beauty of this war on high sec, in its full glory.
Bravo null sec cartels, bravo. A true coup. Unless the manufacturing slot cost alone for building a Nestor is 1.429Bill or the total build cost of a Navy Raven is 71%-100% slot costs (meaning BPC isk cost and minerals only comprise 0%-29% of the total build cost) this is entirely untrue as I understand it.
Can someone please break this down so I can get how this is actually playing out? I clearly don't judging from what is being claimed. |
Flash Phoenix
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:33:00 -
[1722] - Quote
1. Why can null not have hi isk payouts on hi risk items for industry, than cannot be made in high sec ? 2. Why can low sec not have pretty good isk payout on items for industry that can not be done in high sec ? 3. Why can high sec not have a profitable payout on items for industry ?
Any item could be made in null sec, perhaps just not much profit or worth the effort. The null sec high profit / high risk items should not be just capital items or items that only old players with high skill points can make or acquire.
What is the deal on leveling the playing field or tilting it to Null? It just makes sense that high sec areas with police protection would be the place to produce items in mass with some safety. It also makes sense that their be recourses that are not in high sec, and cannot be allowed in high sec that are made into hi profit items that are allowed and needed in high sec. You run a risk getting the items, making the items and moving them to high sec.
High Risk and High Profit its such a simple deal.
This industry balance deal is such a mess when all we need is some new content and game play.
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:37:00 -
[1723] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
And the cost of renting a system with a station in it just went way up. Or I could be wrong, since I never dove that deep into the serf structure. Does the goon shell exec alliance that runs their rental empire retain ownership of the stations within the systems of the rental empire, or does the serf that rents the particular system inherit the ownership of a station, if one is in that system?
If #1, and the goons, through their rental empire exec corp, retain ownership of each station in their rental empire, they will simply tax each slot (as I predicted over a year ago) at some rate, and the cash flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership. If #2, and the serfs actually "own" the station in the system they are renting, then rental costs for those systems with stations just went way way up, and the money still flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership.
Either way, this entire overhaul was designed to enrich the cartel leadership, on a massive scale, at the expense of every high sec and low sec industrialist. But of course, they had no hand in the design, and what CCP has designed , by pure coincidence only, is perfect for their rental construct.
System owners could already set the cost of installing jobs at null outposts. Didn't matter who owns the system, the cash eventually rolled up to the masters that had the most titans so could control space. IF, and I've not seen definitive that this new usage based tax will apply to outposts, the cost scaling for usage is going to apply to null, it will likely be a tax in addition to the installation cost.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474708#post4474708
Quote:The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs.
Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs. --emphasis added
Learn to read.
So the same cost issue facing HS dwellers will apply to NS as well. It was posted in this thread over a week ago. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2763
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:42:00 -
[1724] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:And the very best part of these nerfs, the ever so sweet part of these nerfs, is this:
One of the largest demographics hurt by this, the casual high sec player, they don't even know this assault on their playstyle is coming, because they don't even follow the forums and dev blogs.
The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.
And a few months after that, when the the people that got shell-shocked in June, when their subs start running out, then we shall witness the true brilliance and beauty of this war on high sec, in its full glory.
Bravo null sec cartels, bravo. A true coup. Unless the manufacturing slot cost alone for building a Nestor is 1.429Bill or the total build cost of a Navy Raven is 71%-100% slot costs (meaning BPC isk cost and minerals only comprise 0%-29% of the total build cost) this is entirely untrue as I understand it. Can someone please break this down so I can get how this is actually playing out? I clearly don't judging from what is being claimed.
Pretty simple math. Cost of using an NPC mfg slot is going to be 14% of the sell price of an item. I was hoping it was going to be cost , but most blogs are making it clear it is sell price. And yes, even with spread out manufacturing, (gonna love building 15 jumps from a trade hub in low sec), there will be huge opportunity costs to bring products to market.
Nestor sells now for 1.5 billion, and the NPC slot cost is going to be 210 million. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:45:00 -
[1725] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.
Bzzt, wrong. Sellers always try to pass along the entire cost increases but the downward slopping nature of the demand curve with respect to price prevents this.
The effect of the increase in costs is thus a burden on both the buyer and the seller.
And that is only if people insist on using the most jammed up building slots. The 0-14% is a sliding scale and is dependent on how intensively the slots are used.
But no, lets simply assume the worst outcome is going to apply everywhere...well except NS where they wont face these kinds of added costs via some sort of elite PVP magic or some such.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2765
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:46:00 -
[1726] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
And the cost of renting a system with a station in it just went way up. Or I could be wrong, since I never dove that deep into the serf structure. Does the goon shell exec alliance that runs their rental empire retain ownership of the stations within the systems of the rental empire, or does the serf that rents the particular system inherit the ownership of a station, if one is in that system?
If #1, and the goons, through their rental empire exec corp, retain ownership of each station in their rental empire, they will simply tax each slot (as I predicted over a year ago) at some rate, and the cash flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership. If #2, and the serfs actually "own" the station in the system they are renting, then rental costs for those systems with stations just went way way up, and the money still flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership.
Either way, this entire overhaul was designed to enrich the cartel leadership, on a massive scale, at the expense of every high sec and low sec industrialist. But of course, they had no hand in the design, and what CCP has designed , by pure coincidence only, is perfect for their rental construct.
System owners could already set the cost of installing jobs at null outposts. Didn't matter who owns the system, the cash eventually rolled up to the masters that had the most titans so could control space. IF, and I've not seen definitive that this new usage based tax will apply to outposts, the cost scaling for usage is going to apply to null, it will likely be a tax in addition to the installation cost. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474708#post4474708Quote:The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs.
Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs. --emphasis added Learn to read. So the same cost issue facing HS dwellers will apply to NS as well. It was posted in this thread over a week ago.
Ummmm...no. Dev's said explicitly that null sec faces much smaller taxes than high sec. The same structure is applied, but at a much smaller rate. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:46:00 -
[1727] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:And the very best part of these nerfs, the ever so sweet part of these nerfs, is this:
One of the largest demographics hurt by this, the casual high sec player, they don't even know this assault on their playstyle is coming, because they don't even follow the forums and dev blogs.
The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.
And a few months after that, when the the people that got shell-shocked in June, when their subs start running out, then we shall witness the true brilliance and beauty of this war on high sec, in its full glory.
Bravo null sec cartels, bravo. A true coup. Unless the manufacturing slot cost alone for building a Nestor is 1.429Bill or the total build cost of a Navy Raven is 71%-100% slot costs (meaning BPC isk cost and minerals only comprise 0%-29% of the total build cost) this is entirely untrue as I understand it. Can someone please break this down so I can get how this is actually playing out? I clearly don't judging from what is being claimed. Pretty simple math. Cost of using an NPC mfg slot is going to be 14% of the sell price of an item. I was hoping it was going to be cost , but most blogs are making it clear it is sell price. And yes, even with spread out manufacturing, (gonna love building 15 jumps from a trade hub in low sec), there will be huge opportunity costs to bring products to market. Nestor sells now for 1.5 billion, and the NPC slot cost is going to be 210 million.
Or 0% or 1% or 7.89%.
So, unless HS manufacturing means all slots everywhere in HS are being used at exactly the same levels of intensity your assumption is unwarranted.
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:47:00 -
[1728] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
And the cost of renting a system with a station in it just went way up. Or I could be wrong, since I never dove that deep into the serf structure. Does the goon shell exec alliance that runs their rental empire retain ownership of the stations within the systems of the rental empire, or does the serf that rents the particular system inherit the ownership of a station, if one is in that system?
If #1, and the goons, through their rental empire exec corp, retain ownership of each station in their rental empire, they will simply tax each slot (as I predicted over a year ago) at some rate, and the cash flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership. If #2, and the serfs actually "own" the station in the system they are renting, then rental costs for those systems with stations just went way way up, and the money still flows directly into the pockets of the goon leadership.
Either way, this entire overhaul was designed to enrich the cartel leadership, on a massive scale, at the expense of every high sec and low sec industrialist. But of course, they had no hand in the design, and what CCP has designed , by pure coincidence only, is perfect for their rental construct.
System owners could already set the cost of installing jobs at null outposts. Didn't matter who owns the system, the cash eventually rolled up to the masters that had the most titans so could control space. IF, and I've not seen definitive that this new usage based tax will apply to outposts, the cost scaling for usage is going to apply to null, it will likely be a tax in addition to the installation cost. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474708#post4474708Quote:The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs.
Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs. --emphasis added Learn to read. So the same cost issue facing HS dwellers will apply to NS as well. It was posted in this thread over a week ago. Ummmm...no. Dev's said explicitly that null sec faces much smaller taxes than high sec. The same structure is applied, but at a much smaller rate.
Well then you can post a link then can't you.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
414
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 22:53:00 -
[1729] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.
You are describing a situation in which everyone in highsec is highly vertically integrated. While I'd like to believe that this is just your experience coloring your view on the rest of the game, well, frankly, it's probably the norm, at least if all the varied, sundry anecdotes I've read are true. It's sad, really -- vertical integration is extremely inefficient in this game. We in the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal avoid it whenever possible.
If these changes encourage people to stop needlessly vertically integrating and focus on their niches, the economy will improve considerably, and everyone so inclined will realize a significant increase in wealth. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
30
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 23:07:00 -
[1730] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:
IF, and I've not seen definitive that this new usage based tax will apply to outposts, the cost scaling for usage is going to apply to null, it will likely be a tax in addition to the installation cost.
It's been confirmed that the scaling 'cost' will apply to Null Sec by a blue post somewhere in this thread. The owners can also set a tax cost. To all the rage quiters, while I do have serious concerns myself about a few of the details simply handing the keys of EVE to the current Null Sec blob before they have worked out how to break the great blue doughnut with better Sov mechanics, there is so much change occurring that no-one can accurately predict exactly how it will settle. High Sec Industry may still be a highly valid profession, it may even become more profitable. T2 Invention may still remain effective. We have four more dev blogs of numbers to go, and the numbers don't tell the whole story because people are involved anyway. So wait and find out how it settles three months after summer. Then speak with your wallets if you feel you have been hurt, but speak knowingly, not in thoughtless rage. You sound like a dev's alt, praying that most of the people who have said they are unsubbing are really not, because if even half of them do, oh boy. As for high sec being more profitable, mathematically impossible, given what the dev's have stated. Also, T2 invention is getting the same application as all other high sec nerfs in the fall/winter. Lastly, one of the chief architects of this null sec win has already stated that a subscription drop is expected, in exchange for "long term game viability". Yeah, I can believe people will leave over this. Though I'm willing to bet most of it is from being ill informed and making kneejerk reactions to claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. In the end nullsec won't magically sprout markets that serve any non-blue demand, which means they still eat transport costs. Unless I'm misunderstanding and it's more than the slot costs that are being affected by the 14% increase could very well be close to eaten by transport costs of high volume goods. Really the only nullsec advantage for manufacturing I'm seeing is a direct result of the lower population there, rather then some mechanical baked in advantage. Minerals will still be sold to the highest payer, so we won't see a massive difference in cost there, meaning material costs will be similar for both high and null producers. Not seeing what the big deal is.
Is not that Im going to stop playing the game, I will just no use for my HS accounts and yes there wont be a bunch of trade hubs all over 0.0, but volume will decrease in Jita because is more expensive to make or you will need to transport it and 0.0 people wont need to import modules and ships from HS to 0.0.
This alone will increase prices in ALL trade hubs, what would be a way to get everything cheaper? Fly 5 jumps to get a ship then maybe another 3 to get your guns and now to look for the Damage control and lets travel to the dude that is building it in the middle of nowhere.
Im not talking here only from a part time industrialist perspective but mainly as a consumer. I don't want higher prices and is not like mineral will increase in prices because the price increase will come from transportation alone. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1124
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 23:14:00 -
[1731] - Quote
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote: Is not that Im going to stop playing the game, I will just no use for my HS accounts and yes there wont be a bunch of trade hubs all over 0.0, but volume will decrease in Jita because is more expensive to make or you will need to transport it and 0.0 people wont need to import modules and ships from HS to 0.0.
This alone will increase prices in ALL trade hubs, what would be a way to get everything cheaper? Fly 5 jumps to get a ship then maybe another 3 to get your guns and now to look for the Damage control and lets travel to the dude that is building it in the middle of nowhere.
Im not talking here only from a part time industrialist perspective but mainly as a consumer. I don't want higher prices and is not like mineral will increase in prices because the price increase will come from transportation alone.
Considering how self reinforcing trade hubs already are I really can't see this level of decentralization becoming a reality. Not everyone produces at or immediately around Jita now, but that has yet to dethrone it. Even materials exclusive to other security bands are traded in large quantities there. The utility of a trade hub won't be marginalized by production costs because those costs aren't what drives consolidating trade to one location. |
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
30
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 23:22:00 -
[1732] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Lvzbel Ixtab wrote: Is not that Im going to stop playing the game, I will just no use for my HS accounts and yes there wont be a bunch of trade hubs all over 0.0, but volume will decrease in Jita because is more expensive to make or you will need to transport it and 0.0 people wont need to import modules and ships from HS to 0.0.
This alone will increase prices in ALL trade hubs, what would be a way to get everything cheaper? Fly 5 jumps to get a ship then maybe another 3 to get your guns and now to look for the Damage control and lets travel to the dude that is building it in the middle of nowhere.
Im not talking here only from a part time industrialist perspective but mainly as a consumer. I don't want higher prices and is not like mineral will increase in prices because the price increase will come from transportation alone.
Considering how self reinforcing trade hubs already are I really can't see this level of decentralization becoming a reality. Not everyone produces at or immediately around Jita now, but that has yet to dethrone it. Even materials exclusive to other security bands are traded in large quantities there. The utility of a trade hub won't be marginalized by production costs because those costs aren't what drives consolidating trade to one location.
Of course it wont turn into that extreme scenario, but it will add extra cost to everything, people will need to move farther away from jita and as right now it was not hard to find a place within 20 jumps from jita. It will just increase price to everything something that as a consumer I don't want to have to deal with.
|
Samsung Tsurpalen
The Chunnel Crew
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 00:41:00 -
[1733] - Quote
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote: Of course it wont turn into that extreme scenario, but it will add extra cost to everything, people will need to move farther away from jita and as right now it was not hard to find a place within 20 jumps from jita. It will just increase price to everything something that as a consumer I don't want to have to deal with.
What?
Highsec transport is basically free, 20 jumps from redfrog costs ~14 million and lets you move 1 billion isk worth of goods, that's a cost increase of 1.4% |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14216
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 00:46:00 -
[1734] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:
IF, and I've not seen definitive that this new usage based tax will apply to outposts, the cost scaling for usage is going to apply to null, it will likely be a tax in addition to the installation cost.
It's been confirmed that the scaling 'cost' will apply to Null Sec by a blue post somewhere in this thread. The owners can also set a tax cost. To all the rage quiters, while I do have serious concerns myself about a few of the details simply handing the keys of EVE to the current Null Sec blob before they have worked out how to break the great blue doughnut with better Sov mechanics, there is so much change occurring that no-one can accurately predict exactly how it will settle. High Sec Industry may still be a highly valid profession, it may even become more profitable. T2 Invention may still remain effective. We have four more dev blogs of numbers to go, and the numbers don't tell the whole story because people are involved anyway. So wait and find out how it settles three months after summer. Then speak with your wallets if you feel you have been hurt, but speak knowingly, not in thoughtless rage. but we must revolt against something... i brought a pitchfork President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1267
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 00:59:00 -
[1735] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
Well then you can post a link then can't you.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474768#post4474768
Or you could have taken 10-20 seconds to link of the Devs front page post, or actually have read the thread. Disndale may be crazy, but at least call him out on the craziness, not actual references. Obviously we don't have details because it's one of the future blogs that set the details that the Devs haven't released yet leaving people uncertain and understandably worried. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14216
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 01:09:00 -
[1736] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:rhetoric and rehash of old news. the casual high sec player dgaf how much the product fetches on market, they just want to go through the gameplay of mine, refine, build, right-click sell to regional buy order using their retriever/marauder character with no trade skills or standings.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:[quote=Tyberius Franklin][quote=Dinsdale Pirannha]
Nestor sells now for 1.5 billion, and the NPC slot cost is going to be 210 million. guarantee they will still right-click sell to regional buy orders or undercut lowest sell order aka your pile (and my pile). Have you considered that and decided whether you'll give chase with your orders? You can't compete with truly casual players, because they don't have the same goals as you; if they make the connection between belt mining and market as a source of income, they will simply factor in a few more trips in the mining barge and feel right as rain, having discounted their mining time from the start. casual players are just looking to waste their time anyway. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 01:34:00 -
[1737] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
Well then you can post a link then can't you.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474768#post4474768Or you could have taken 10-20 seconds to link of the Devs front page post, or actually have read the thread. Disndale may be crazy, but at least call him out on the craziness, not actual references. Obviously we don't have details because it's one of the future blogs that set the details that the Devs haven't released yet leaving people uncertain and understandably worried.
Ok i read that post. Where exactly does it say NS wont face the cost escalation or that it will be mitigated in some fashion? What letter in the word "Yes" implied this?
Admittedly that post did say that outpost bonuses will change but is a leap to assume that means lower costs. It could but at this point it is speculation. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 01:45:00 -
[1738] - Quote
Another aspect keep in mind is that currently slots have a hard limit once they are full they are full you have to wait. This limits the amount of production at any given time. Now by removing that hard limit and essentially giving stations and infinite number of slots but with a sliding cost scale that is It removes a hard constraint on production. Given that supply currently can be severely limited due to the limitations on slots it stands to reason that prices currently may be higher than they would be with an infinite slot model using a sliding scale cost adder.
To see the effect I am talking about draw a downward sloping demand curve then draw an upward sloping supply curve that at a certain point goes vertical. Now move the demand curve so that is intersecting on the vertical part of the supply curve any further increases in supply will result simply an higher prices no additional production. In this case adding infinite slots even with an increasing cost factor could very well result in lower prices than the current situation.
Of course this assumes that the number of slots are all being fully and totally utilized everywhere and also to the extent that this is not true then this scenario is not a factor. However, in that case it also means that having a sliding cost scale to an infinite slot model will have little impact on final prices. |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:30:00 -
[1739] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:So "lockdown blueprints" now becomes almost entirely useless? We will also have to move those blueprints between multiple hangers when we're using the assembly items, and goodbye to things such as remote filtering and such?
*Scratches head* ... was this designed by someone in photoshop and outlook by any chance? Thus ignoring such trivial things as... ease of use.
I have no earthly idea why a BPO needs to be moved to a starbase in order to use it, when all of us indy types have deliberately trained skills to avoid having to do that, to manage them all centrally (like anyone in real life would do).
Fix things like batch creation.
Indeed ... not being able to pool your hundreds of BPO's in one place (in station) and research remotely, pretty much makes POS's obsolete for research IMO .... no sense risking valuable BPO's at the POS .... imaging making hundreds of trips back and forth from station to POS to carry the bpo's to the right lab, etc. too ... goodbye BPO researching, was nice knowing ya ... oh wait, no, you sucked the whole time (because of bad UI) and are now sucking worse (but with greatly improved UI) .... Yay??
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:31:00 -
[1740] - Quote
The more I hear of this discussion the more I'm convinced that everyone is getting screwed with expected change.
Infinite slots at stations with sliding cost scale, ok... Only long term shortage of slots I've ever seen is for ME & Coping. Rarely have I seen the actual manufacturing lines completely full for anything longer than a week. With PE and Invention I have NEVER seen all lines at a high-sec station in any system I frequented full, granted I don't set up shop adjacent to major hubs.
WTH should there be taxes levied against operations conducted at a POS anywhere? Ok, my corp (an alt btw) grinds out faction (ie suck up to an empire) set the structures, pay legit dues to anchor in high (charters). Now, if I choose I can have labs, certain manufacturing arrays, maybe the Eve equivalent to a Meth Lab (Drug Lab for boosters, no sure on that one but figure I'd lighten the tone a little).
Here comes summer expansion... Empires suddenly don't mind any ol' Tom, Richard and Scary to plop a POS at a moon it is ok, because we are gonna tax them for whatever they do... Oh pay no mind to it breaking any semblance to rational visage of political paradymns or lore.
Oh, you're in low? Don't worry we got a rusty axle shaft for you too! Concord/Empire doesn't care as much who you are to begin with or generally what you do. Fear not friend or fiend for you shall get taxed too.
(I really wished I had something witty to say about null to follow in the theme but lack experience in that arena, however I don't assume they would get much true benefit realistically)
Let us not belittle the lube for the S&I complex a new interface, mind not the abrasive in said lube in the way of adding more complexity to tracking print real locations or the joy of risking that several billion isk bpo to get it copied to 'safely' produce it *snort...
After 80+ pages I thought a some what satyrical albeit possibly biased (or may not biased) summary was in order. I had a few witty analogies but none where fit for public discourse.
post note: You got to love auto-censor poor Richard So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:43:00 -
[1741] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:Some proposed changes make sense, but some are not really thought out. The removal of standings for POSes is a bad idea both because it wil promote POS spamming and because it's unfair to the people who endured those long standing grinds CCP forced beforehand.
The need to phisically move BPs is also going to be a terrible change, wasting players' time and adding danger with no tangible reward. it would make sense if a phisically moved BP would provide an advantage of some kind (shorter times, for example) versus the comfort of remote action, but as it's been noted already, it's again unfair against people who trained specific skills, but even more it's farcical to introduce in New Eden, Anno Domini 23341, an activity which is outdated on old XXI century Earth. ...
Yep ....
With this change CCP is actually further discouraging player interaction ... they are instead encouraging industrialists to create SOLO research/manufacturing corps even more than before ... since you can no longer feasibly lock down or manage BPO's via hangar tab permissions in station (but must instead transport them physically to the POS where no security exists), it is too much risk to allow anyone else in corp ... SOLO will be the only way to go > working completely against "Player Engagement".
And pretty much making Faction Standings useless .... great, just great, nice to know all my effort was for nothing ... |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:57:00 -
[1742] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Sarin Gaston wrote:"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements " Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth. it was a waste of your time the correct solution is an apology and axing that atrocious mechanic forever not "well sarin gaston had to do it once so we must have everyone suffer equally"
It removes a lot of player achievement mechanics, which motivate a lot of players ..... wouldn't we want more achievements rather than less?
Seems to be making the game a lot more shallow rather than deeper and richer .... people who don't like these mechanics really wouldn't seem to be affected much anyway .... why change it? |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:23:00 -
[1743] - Quote
Querns wrote:Slappy Andven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Xaniff wrote: 2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).
Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down. I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this? Not really. These changes are about tilting the game in the direction it's supposed to be tilted -- you must endure risk for reward. A significant portion of the changes in Rubicon and in the new expansion are in the removal of low-to-no risk activities such as reprocessing, research, and manufacturing. That being said, if you do wish to eliminate risk, you can still utilize station-based RAM lines.
Not sure what the "reward" is supposed to be though now? .... Why would anyone anchor a POS anymore? Why would anyone grind Faction standing anymore? .... Instead just find a cheap out of the way station where you can keep your high value BPO's safe .... this change basically removes (hisec) POS's as a game element. |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:36:00 -
[1744] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Makoto Priano wrote:I hate to be that guy, but: any content for shooting-at-people stuff, or any development along the explore-new-shenanigans and make-new-implants realm?
There will be POS's everywhere and those POS's are now slightly more likely to contain BPO's. I'm pretty sure the shooting-at-people demographic is getting an indirect buff here ;)
Those POS's will no longer contain ANY high value BPO's unfortunately .... and it will be trivial to re-anchor one ... so go ahead, have at'em.
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:40:00 -
[1745] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Querns wrote:The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS. But the dev blog says "The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked". So clearly you must be wrong! ;)
Indeed ... why even defend them? Why even attack them? No one would be crazy enough to put any high value BPO's in POS's now ... |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 04:55:00 -
[1746] - Quote
Imiarr Timshae wrote:It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.
30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers. Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS. No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.
That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.
I wonder what the logic is behind this.
And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is:
EVE: Contraction
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:22:00 -
[1747] - Quote
Sarin Gaston wrote:"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements " Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth.
And for how long did you benefit from this. I could understand this complaint a bit if you maybe you just go the standings but if you've had them for years now you are complaining because newer players can suddenly compete with you.
Take your profits and HTFU. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:24:00 -
[1748] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.
30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers. Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS. No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.
That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.
I wonder what the logic is behind this. And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is: EVE: Contraction
Actually it is:
Eve: Butt Hurt Older Players
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:25:00 -
[1749] - Quote
Oh and another thing for the whiney players in this thread.
Cost does not determine price.
You just just dropped back about 200 years in terms of economics if you think this. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:27:00 -
[1750] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:
And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is:
EVE: Contraction
Simply brilliant...
hmm, "Building Better Worlds"... did CCP get bought by Wylan-Yutoni? (Alien franchise reference, latter half of thread title is used verbatim in sequel Aliens I'm surprised it took me this long to catch it)
I would suggest to the Devs that this being early in the life cycle of expansion design, now would be a good time to reassess key aspects. It is evident post expansion game play is going to change and most likely not in direction planned.
Just my 2isk
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:34:00 -
[1751] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:Takara Mora wrote:
And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is:
EVE: Contraction
Simply brilliant... hmm, "Building Better Worlds"... did CCP get bought by Wylan-Yutoni? (Alien franchise reference, latter half of thread title is used verbatim in sequel Aliens I'm surprised it took me this long to catch it) I would suggest to the Devs that this being early in the life cycle of expansion design, now would be a good time to reassess key aspects. It is evident post expansion game play is going to change and most likely not in direction planned. Just my 2isk
It is Weyland-Yutani...
sheeesh.
|
Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
32
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 05:39:00 -
[1752] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:Anders Madeveda wrote:... Impatiently waiting for more details before I begin my 4 account sellof of Pos's, BPO's, assets and toons. Taking a hard look at ESO and others.
I fail to understand what's so attractive at ESO... you don't even have a market there... GW2 is far more superior.
Its on my list to look at! Heard some great things about it too. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1024
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 06:00:00 -
[1753] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.
You are describing a situation in which everyone in highsec is highly vertically integrated. While I'd like to believe that this is just your experience coloring your view on the rest of the game, well, frankly, it's probably the norm, at least if all the varied, sundry anecdotes I've read are true. It's sad, really -- vertical integration is extremely inefficient in this game. We in the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal avoid it whenever possible. If these changes encourage people to stop needlessly vertically integrating and focus on their niches, the economy will improve considerably, and everyone so inclined will realize a significant increase in wealth. It is true. There are some staggeringly inefficient workflows out there. I think they will remain until 'minerals I mine aren't free'. So never.
Or maybe people are just thick and bad at math. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Lorna Sicling
Helix Pulse Brothers of Tangra
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 07:23:00 -
[1754] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:penifSMASH wrote:How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs Grarr Dexx wrote:Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0? The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs. Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs.
Seriously?
Manufacturing, inventing, researching and reverse engineering in either a POS or null sec Outpost have significant additional costs over sitting in a hi-sec station (fuel etc for POS and logistics costs for outposts). So somehow, a concord or some other body is now going to oversee everything we do and tax us on it? What about repairs, clone costs and docking fees? Will these all be taxed on outposts too, as currently thy can be set to zero? Oh wait, that would affect PvP and so would be a bad change.
I'm trying to see how industry can work in null sec right now, and am part way through some blogs about it, but to me, these changes are likely to make it even less competitive to manufacture in null sec. Also, you're suggesting that you're removing the time bonus from POS and outpost slots and replacing them with other bonuses? Do you have any idea how this might affect the profitability and output of industry operations? Have you considered this?
Question - did the last CSM actually have anybody that understood industry in Eve beyond what they found in the wreck of the industrial ship they just destroyed? Industrialist - currently renting in null sec.
Writer of the blog "A Scientist's Life in Eve" - proud member of the Eve Blog Pack |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 08:34:00 -
[1755] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Ummmm...no. Dev's said explicitly that null sec faces much smaller taxes than high sec. The same structure is applied, but at a much smaller rate.
we already paid a tax, 80 bill just to have a nice station |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
389
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 08:44:00 -
[1756] - Quote
There seem to be 3 groups in this discussion, hisec players who at least have a strong expectation that they will lose out in summer, the null folks who are fighting for this change and will most likely benefit from it, and those in the middle who will wait and see what the changes bring then adapt to them and/or work around them.
In terms of CSM meetings it seems that null sec regions are well represented, who represented hisec and losec interests with regards to these changes?. Surely those people should now be explaining the rationale behind these changes to address the lack of information we have at the moment. Obviously we need to see what the rest of the blogs bring, but allowing such rampant speculation without some kind of balancing input is only bad. |
Kaius Fero
37
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 09:42:00 -
[1757] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Ummmm...no. Dev's said explicitly that null sec faces much smaller taxes than high sec. The same structure is applied, but at a much smaller rate.
we already paid a tax, 80 bill just to have a nice station Goons are so damn good at extracting tears :| Because right now I cry like a baby thinking about how much you guys had to suffer out in the middle of nowhere ... that's just so cruel and unfair :(
/hug
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:There seem to be 3 groups in this discussion, hisec players who at least have a strong expectation that they will lose out in summer, the null folks who are fighting for this change and will most likely benefit from it, and those in the middle who will wait and see what the changes bring then adapt to them and/or work around them.
In terms of CSM meetings it seems that null sec regions are well represented, who represented hisec and losec interests with regards to these changes?. Surely those people should now be explaining the rationale behind these changes to address the lack of information we have at the moment. Obviously we need to see what the rest of the blogs bring, but allowing such rampant speculation without some kind of balancing input is only bad. Nobody represents hi sec. Mostly because more than 80-90% of hi sec citizens don't care about forums and CSM for various reasons ... most probably because the majority are casual players with limited time to play. So yeah.. they don't get involved, they don't deserve to have a voice.. that's a pretty unique philosophy in the game industry. But until people keep playing and pay a subscription, CCP can take extreme measures and keep destroying hi sec .. let's see for how long and where is the limit. |
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space BORG Alliance
52
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 10:00:00 -
[1758] - Quote
Wish they would release the missing dec blogs finally finally, so we could get an idea what else changes how things work.
Especially when it comes to "working together as a team". I heard something about a team dev blog, that one would be really important to see...
Cause as it stands right now, they ruined the "owning and using BPOs together through having them locked up" feature. As you cannot lock BPOs on a POS. Would also be horrible to have them locked there while it gets attacked. So there need to be some replacement system asap.
BPO locking was a major, but also very annoying feature (whoever had to lock/unlock hundrets of them knows what i am talking about), when it came to doing research, invention and production together. So far it was no problem to lock them at any station, even if they had no slots at all, as you could use the POS outside the station in the same system.
We either need a way to secure BPOs at a POS, more stations with production/research capability, or increased numbers of bureaus on stations that offer those services. Cause of the following reason:
All the people that used "suboptimal" stations so far cause they had their POS, are now forced to look for stations that have production/research/copy/invention slots. And i bet there are not enough of those out there for all of them.
They removed the bottleneck of available slots, but created a new bottleneck of a lack of available bureaus for corporations, that suddenly need them, as their "we can use the POS even on suboptimal stations" thing is busted. They moved out of the way, went through lots of effort and maintenance costs, to "be undisturbed and make room for others" - and now they get forced to return back to those crowded stations.
I really see a big upcomming problem in available bureaus on such stations after the summer patch - we need more bureau slots at those stations, or more stations that offer those kind of services. Caus i bet there are many corporations out there, that used POS as main production/research/invention points, with BPOs locked at stations that had no services at all. I know that we have been one of those corps, and i bet we are not the only one out there. This change forces us to move, to look for a station that offers those services to us, so we can keep using our BPO collection in the same fashin as so far.
So unless they have some really neat and new nice things up their sleeves for the team dev blog, the coopertive invention and production of Eve will take a strong hit. Especially when it comes to BPO sharing, without them being "stealable". |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2772
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:14:00 -
[1759] - Quote
Hexatron Ormand wrote:Wish they would release the missing dec blogs finally finally, so we could get an idea what else changes how things work.
Especially when it comes to "working together as a team". I heard something about a team dev blog, that one would be really important to see...
Cause as it stands right now, they ruined the "owning and using BPOs together through having them locked up" feature. As you cannot lock BPOs on a POS. Would also be horrible to have them locked there while it gets attacked. So there need to be some replacement system asap.
BPO locking was a major, but also very annoying feature (whoever had to lock/unlock hundrets of them knows what i am talking about), when it came to doing research, invention and production together. So far it was no problem to lock them at any station, even if they had no slots at all, as you could use the POS outside the station in the same system.
We either need a way to secure BPOs at a POS, more stations with production/research capability, or increased numbers of bureaus on stations that offer those services. Cause of the following reason:
All the people that used "suboptimal" stations so far cause they had their POS, are now forced to look for stations that have production/research/copy/invention slots. And i bet there are not enough of those out there for all of them.
They removed the bottleneck of available slots, but created a new bottleneck of a lack of available bureaus for corporations, that suddenly need them, as their "we can use the POS even on suboptimal stations" thing is busted. They moved out of the way, went through lots of effort and maintenance costs, to "be undisturbed and make room for others" - and now they get forced to return back to those crowded stations.
I really see a big upcomming problem in available bureaus on such stations after the summer patch - we need more bureau slots at those stations, or more stations that offer those kind of services. Caus i bet there are many corporations out there, that used POS as main production/research/invention points, with BPOs locked at stations that had no services at all. I know that we have been one of those corps, and i bet we are not the only one out there. This change forces us to move, to look for a station that offers those services to us, so we can keep using our BPO collection in the same fashin as so far.
So unless they have some really neat and new nice things up their sleeves for the team dev blog, the coopertive invention and production of Eve will take a strong hit. Especially when it comes to BPO sharing, without them being "stealable".
All part of the plan devised by the cartels. They were well aware of the copy/ME/PE station bottlenecks you just described when they implemented these changes. Anyone with half a brain can see that there will be immense competition to put POS's up in the relatively few high sec systems that offer copy / research slots, where BPO's can be locked down still. That will result in massive running costs in those particular systems, but is still far better than the alternative of allowing all your BPO's to vanish with a few clicks by a thief at a POS.
But there will be another alternative, already alluded to by one of the chief architects of these changes. The goons stated explicitly they "can now implement plans they made years ago", and "increase density" in sov null sec.
So bottom line, there will be a massive PR push now by goons and pl stating: "Hey, we really do like industrialists. Are you having huge problems keeping your BPO's secure? We have a solution. Come join our happy rental collective, and we will provide you with stations where you can lock down your BPO's and put up POS's in our sov turf, which is far safer than high sec anyway. You will find that our rental fees are very reasonable, compared to the risk and cost you are exposed to in high sec. And those rates are especially reasonable when you factor in the 20% bonus we provide you to refining efficiency, and the huge discount in taxes over NPC stations. Truly, we are so much better to deal with that the war dec griefers, corporate theft potential, and NPC rates that you now face in high sec." Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Nlex
Domini Canium
33
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:26:00 -
[1760] - Quote
This thing seems to have been forgotten in heated arguments, so I want to remind people about it. To legally anchor POS in sov space you need to have high standings with sov holder. NPC empires are sov holders. Why does this requirements goes missing for them? If CCP is so concerned about "legally" part, make players able to put up POSes anywhere even with requirements not met, but have them become free targets after a certain time, linked to system's security status. Or have them being shot down by Empire Navy/CONCORD. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2772
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:22:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Nlex wrote:This thing seems to have been forgotten in heated arguments, so I want to remind people about it. To legally anchor POS in sov space you need to have high standings with sov holder. NPC empires are sov holders. Why does this requirements goes missing for them? If CCP is so concerned about "legally" part, make players able to put up POSes anywhere even with requirements not met, but have them become free targets after a certain time, linked to system's security status. Or have them being shot down by Empire Navy/CONCORD.
The designers of this change have it all neatly sewn up with Ruicon's blanket statement of "The Empires are losing their grasp". They can use that line to justify any nerf to high sec they like. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14217
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:30:00 -
[1762] - Quote
CCP represents high sec. they have an interest in keeping the game appealing to newbs new accounts. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:42:00 -
[1763] - Quote
[quote=CCP YtterbiumletGÇÖs just say youGÇÖll be able to get all the information you need from a single window, without excessive mouse clicks[/quote] I remember hearing this before....oh yeah, the very well thought-out and perfectly-implemented Unified Inventory that had to be instantly changed to allow more than ONE WINDOW for most use-case scenarios.
Nothing could possibly go wrong with the same idea this time... |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3115
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:01:00 -
[1764] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:All part of the plan devised by the cartels. They were well aware of the copy/ME/PE station bottlenecks you just described when they implemented these changes. Anyone with half a brain can see that there will be immense competition to put POS's up in the relatively few high sec systems that offer copy / research slots, where BPO's can be locked down still. That will result in massive running costs in those particular systems, but is still far better than the alternative of allowing all your BPO's to vanish with a few clicks by a thief at a POS.
But there will be another alternative, already alluded to by one of the chief architects of these changes. The goons stated explicitly they "can now implement plans they made years ago", and "increase density" in sov null sec.
So bottom line, there will be a massive PR push now by goons and pl stating: "Hey, we really do like industrialists. Are you having huge problems keeping your BPO's secure? We have a solution. Come join our happy rental collective, and we will provide you with stations where you can lock down your BPO's and put up POS's in our sov turf, which is far safer than high sec anyway. You will find that our rental fees are very reasonable, compared to the risk and cost you are exposed to in high sec. And those rates are especially reasonable when you factor in the 20% bonus we provide you to refining efficiency, and the huge discount in taxes over NPC stations. Truly, we are so much better to deal with that the war dec griefers, corporate theft potential, and NPC rates that you now face in high sec."
Just as a note:
There's no particular requirement to have a POS in a system with copy slots. For the vast majority of production the value of a copy is relatively low. So transporting them to the system you have your POS in, is a minimal risk.
Now, Offices are another matter. You may have competition for those. However, as they have a capless increment on the monthly cost, this could become very interesting indeed. Just look at Jita, where people are spending a billion a month (last I looked) for a 4-4 CNAP office. 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
389
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:21:00 -
[1765] - Quote
Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these? |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
642
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:45:00 -
[1766] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: but we must revolt against something... i brought a pitchfork
There is a Monty Python reference in there somewhere, I can feel it.
If a manufacturer feels the cost of production in a station is too great and they do not wish to relocate far enoguh away to reduce costs to their liking, they always have the option of erecting a POS and building from there, so long as they are in a corporation, which they can do entirely on their own with no one else. Anchor whichever or however many modules suit your operation.
I hear lots of new moons will be opening up this summer.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:58:00 -
[1767] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these?
Until recently nullsec outposts had very limited slot capability and were highly specialized. amarr was the manufacturing station, minmatar the refinery, caldari the lab, and gallente was focused on offices. Recent changes have seen improvements in these areas and I suspect slots in these stations will become unlimited, but each station will only get bonuses for what it's best at. Ir. Amarr getting build bonuses, etc.
As to the use of a pos, even large control towers are very easy to knock down in nullsec. This can quickly overshadow the fuel bonus as a risk for the few industrialists that are out there.
Lorna Sicling wrote: What about repairs, clone costs and docking fees? Will these all be taxed on outposts too, as currently thy can be set to zero? Oh wait, that would affect PvP and so would be a bad change.
Repairs and docking fees can be set to 0, and often are. Clone costs on the other hand are static and do not change, the only difference is that cloning services are available in all sov null conquerable stations and outposts, as opposed to a few in NPC nullsec or empire space. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
642
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:04:00 -
[1768] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these?
They do. My corp ran several research POSes. We also did invention, T2 production, and ice refining. All from POSes because only 1 limited-use station per system, and some mongloid from "The Before Times" thought it was cute to put an Amarr Manufacturing station in a system with 20 belts, one of which was ice.
WTB destructible stations.
Personally, I think the scaling costs for POSes should be waived, and the current slot numbers kept. They provide a nice fixed monthly expense alternative to scaling costs, but at a fixed limit to the number of jobs that can be run. Any system is also limited to the number of available moons.
How will this new system interact with CSAAs? Can someone put 10 titans in build for only a modest increase in cost? CCP really needs to be on the ball with this change and make sure no fringe cases slip through the cracks.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:21:00 -
[1769] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:How will this new system interact with CSAAs? Can someone put 10 titans in build for only a modest increase in cost?
14% of titan value *cough* modest increase *cough*
But yeah, comments like this make me wonder, whether CCP really puts in the effort to properly analyze all the possible use and exploitation cases...
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
416
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:22:00 -
[1770] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these? POSes don't somehow lend their slots to outposts. You have to use their slots the same as anyone else does. POS COULD be used to increase the availability of these slots, but then you have to work out of a POS, with all the attendant hauling and irritation. Why do this when you can just waddle down to highsec, go to a system 1-2 jumps from Jita, and manufacture your little heart out without the possibility of congestion?
1-2 jumps is not an exaggeration, by the way. When I do highsec manufacturing, and the amount I do is definitely very small, I can always find free build slots close to Jita. I don't even bother to scout slots. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
390
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:22:00 -
[1771] - Quote
Thanks for the replies, so POS were a viable option but at cost and risk of destruction. Isn't that the risk/reward balance in action though? I thought POS's had bonuses in null compared to lo (and obviously you can't even use many of the modules in high).
In terms of renting moons I assume this is via a POS located at the moon. I'm guessing the renting systems are pretty deep inside whichever null alliance owns them to be safe? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7034
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:23:00 -
[1772] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these? There's very few of any slots in null because each region was seeded with only three stations, and you're limited to one station per system.
The only outpost with any number of research lines is the caldari, which was disdained because for 30b you got less slots than you could fit on a pos or two, and it has a terrible station model for docking so it's disliked. As a result most places are heavily minmatar/amarr with only a few caldari thrown in here and there for variety. For a long time outpost upgrades were stupidly expensive so although an upgraded caldari station is great, it would have cost 60-150b back in The Day (when alliances were also poorer) making it a hilariously dumb idea. As a result for years nobody dropped them, more may get dropped now but so many systems have a different outpost now and can never have a second.
When it comes to POS research: you could do it in 0.0, but why bother when you could just do it nearly as well in highsec? And when it comes to manufacturing in a pos: not worth the effort: you had to import all the materials from highsec (which are bulkier than the finished product) so you might as well just build it in empire and import the finished product. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
416
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:23:00 -
[1773] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these? How will this new system interact with CSAAs? Can someone put 10 titans in build for only a modest increase in cost? CCP really needs to be on the ball with this change and make sure no fringe cases slip through the cracks. They certainly could, but one can assume the congestion charges will be tuned such that doing so would be extremely stupid. Moon space for CSAAs is not particularly rare, though, so it won't matter. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
416
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:29:00 -
[1774] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Thanks for the replies, so POS were a viable option but at cost and risk of destruction. Isn't that the risk/reward balance in action though? I thought POS's had bonuses in null compared to lo (and obviously you can't even use many of the modules in high).
In terms of renting moons I assume this is via a POS located at the moon. I'm guessing the renting systems are pretty deep inside whichever null alliance owns them to be safe? You have some strange ideas about how nullsec works. Nothing in this post is a thing.
POS work exactly like they do in highsec. You get a fuel consumption bonus if you anchor a tower in an area where you have sov, but that's it.
Having to spend 10 figures on an outpost, only to have it require another nine figures in POS fuel costs per month to bring it to parity with a single highsec station (of which there are 4-15 identical stations in the same system) is pretty awful. It's much easier, today, just to stick to highsec.
The proposed changes will help level this particular playing field. It won't do it completely; there are still tradeoffs between the two security zones, but they're actually meaningful and interesting, rather than the whole situation just being a complete wash with a discrete, unyielding answer. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:32:00 -
[1775] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:
How will this new system interact with CSAAs? Can someone put 10 titans in build for only a modest increase in cost? CCP really needs to be on the ball with this change and make sure no fringe cases slip through the cracks.
This is what im wondering too. But that all depends on how they handle the scaling. Will an array that could handle 10 slots befor have mininum scalign cost when you only install 10 or will it start at higher/lower.
if it only has 1 to start off with, does scalign go through the roof instantly when you try to install a second etc? |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:34:00 -
[1776] - Quote
Hexatron Ormand wrote:
So unless they have some really neat and new nice things up their sleeves for the team dev blog, the coopertive invention and production of Eve will take a strong hit. Especially when it comes to BPO sharing, without them being "stealable".
Which is a major limitation for null sec with the current set up. You have 1 outpost and lots of people using that outpost and not much within 4 - 5 jumps then you could see null hitting that 14% alot sooner than in empire where you could have a number of options within 4-5 jumps depending on what you are doing.
And in null when you decide that you want to anchor a tower and you are part of an alliances research/industry efforts then that POS becomes "stealable" by every schlub you grant slot access to.
Conversely in hi sec you could run a one man show for your industry needs. Since you don't have to worry about holding your space it isn't necessary to have 1,000+ pilots around some of whom might also want to do S&I work to help fatten the wallet. With 2-3 accounts and 4-6 alts you can set up a damn nice S&I operation in hi sec without the security headaches one would face in null.
But hey, to guys like Dinsdale that really isn't a cost cause it doesn't show up in a ledger somewhere.
People like that have an accounting mentality. If it doesn't show up in a ledger its not a cost. Its foolish, but all too often a fact of life. It really isn't all that different a mentality than, "I mine my minerals so they are free." In fact, it is exactly that mentality. A failure to appreciate that opportunity cost is everywhere, that you can never ever get away from it and that every decision entails opportunity cost.
Do you stay in hi sec or move to null. Both, going forward will have advantages and disadvantages.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
390
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:42:00 -
[1777] - Quote
Querns wrote: You have some strange ideas about how nullsec works. Nothing in this post is a thing.
I only have ideas based on the discussions here and the research via google etc. That's why I'm asking questions now, At some point I'll need to use null one way or another and I'd like to understand it better before I do. The answers given also put other discussions in a better context. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7034
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:49:00 -
[1778] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: How will this new system interact with CSAAs? Can someone put 10 titans in build for only a modest increase in cost? CCP really needs to be on the ball with this change and make sure no fringe cases slip through the cracks.
Currently it is possible to put two CSAAs on the same tower. It is generally thought to be a completely idiotic idea and every titan builder who is not an incorrigible moron will have one CSAA per tower.
The same "exactly how many eggs do you want to stuff in that basket" issue will probably be the same: wouldn't you rather have ten pos with one titan each than one pos with ten titans?
Titan building goes sequentially because of components: you use all your component bpos at once to build the components for a titan as fast as possible, then install that titan, then move on to the next. There's no extra effort to do it at a second pos instead of reusing your original pos. Your component build speed determines how many towers you need (divide titan hull time build by component build time, add one: you need that many towers to hit your maximum rate of production with no doubling-up of titans in any pos). Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7034
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:51:00 -
[1779] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Thanks for the replies, so POS were a viable option but at cost and risk of destruction. Isn't that the risk/reward balance in action though? I thought POS's had bonuses in null compared to lo (and obviously you can't even use many of the modules in high).
In terms of renting moons I assume this is via a POS located at the moon. I'm guessing the renting systems are pretty deep inside whichever null alliance owns them to be safe? POS in nullsec get a fuel consumption bonus and can anchor certain mods (moon mining, reactors) that you can't anchor in highsec. None of those 0.0-only modules are useful for research/industry (aside from moon mining and reacting, the one current 0.0 industry). Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7034
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:01:00 -
[1780] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Oh and another thing for the whiney players in this thread. Cost does not determine price. You just just dropped back about 200 years in terms of economics if you think this. cost of inputs is the most significant factor in the price of most manufactured eve items most of the time Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:13:00 -
[1781] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Thanks for the replies, so POS were a viable option but at cost and risk of destruction. Isn't that the risk/reward balance in action though? I thought POS's had bonuses in null compared to lo (and obviously you can't even use many of the modules in high).
In terms of renting moons I assume this is via a POS located at the moon. I'm guessing the renting systems are pretty deep inside whichever null alliance owns them to be safe?
One of the main bonuses of a POS in Sov null is the fuel savings (25% IIRC). Some labs/arrays also had bonuses over stations, IIRC, but it has been awhile since I did invention and manufacturing.
Back when I did HS invention (and why do it in null when you have more security risks plus the hassle of logistics) I used a POS for copying, inventing, and improving BPOs. Manufacturing was all done in station and there was no issue at all finding vacant slots. Copying, invention and improving BPOs (e.g. ME research) was not feasible due to congestion. That is I'd have to wait forever to try and get that stuff done in station...and I was far more than 1-2 jumps from Jita.
Going forward, it might be the case that one wont even need a POS. Sure you might have what is essentially a 14% tax on your ME, PE, and copying jobs, but keep in mind that running a small POS in empire is going to run you 108 million isk+ every 30 days. Even if you do face the 14% "tax" if it is less than 108 million you are coming out ahead (and that is assuming a small tower suited your needs, if you were running a large tower then the amount of isk you spent was substantially higher). And lets be clear hear, nobody knows how fast these things will scale. Will all ME slots basically become infinite but with the 14% "tax"? Maybe, or the underlying mechanic could result in the tax being, on average, 5%.
And as I noted there are additional potential cost reductions here. Granted it wont show up in a freaking ledger (damn accountants) but not having to log in an fuel your tower is a good thing. Not having to buy fuel and scrounge for charters another good thing (and the latter represents a reduction in risk too as you wont be out there booming around in a freighter with fuel blocks or PI stuff in your cargo hold and risk getting ganked). Heck, if it turns out you can move everything to a station you would even substantially reduce the risk of war decs (if you no longer have a tower and turtle up for the dec, then there is nothing for them to shoot at) which is another benefit.
There is so much hand wringing here by the HS people it really is hard not to take an attitude of contempt towards them....
For example most of them have an almost irrational fear of null. Not living there, but that they somehow run the entire show and that this change will drive all S&I to null. But as I noted above what these changes may do is shift S&I from POS's into stations. If the tax that S&I people face is less than the cost of running a POS or two then you move into station, take down the POS (recovering that fixed investment, BTW) and chug along on your merry way.
Where they face the biggest threat, IMO, is the increased competition...in HS! With the removal so slot limitations AND the removal of POS standings requirements it opens up S&I to ALOT more players....in HS. Now the only barrier to entry are skills which is not much of a barrier.
Granted increased S&I in null will increase competition for HS S&I guys, but null has that annoying problem of crappy markets and logistics. I might make a pile of T2 tracking enhancers...but now what? Unless my alliance is going to buy them in bulk from me or there is huge demand where I live (bahahahahahahaha) chances are I'll want to move them to a trade hub. Get out the JF, extra expense of fuel, extra time moving crap around, etc. And as noted, there might be 1-2 outposts within 4-5 jumps with slots, so I could be hitting that 14% alot sooner than in HS. And yeah, while null is often pretty darn boring and safe, that one time it isn't and you are in a 6.5 billion JF..... And lets ignore the office issue as well. Outposts and stations have a limited number of offices, if one is not free then I don't have the benefit of common hangars to share stuff between alts/partners in my S&I work.
Nope, in HS there will be a huge sucking sound as all industry suddenly shifts forever to null. GMAFB |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:28:00 -
[1782] - Quote
Another option the summer foam bat beating removes:
Under current system a corp with a POS in high-sec can make Lab slots available to other corporations in an Alliance either free or with some cost. However it is only remote no material jobs it restricts things to general ME/PE research also the alliance corp has to have a office in the system and BP's in a corp hangar in addition to researchers having access to a wallet division.
The process could be vastly improved, but it does offer alternatives to high-sec (or low) alliances feeling a research slot crunch and forms a definite form of cooperative intergrated groups.
The proposed change of removing the remote job from an office, removing restrictions on anchoring, and taxing work at a POS create nothing but more issues. It will however cripple actual functioning aspect of a flawed system, promote even more solo person micro corps and POS spamming.
Also as stated by dozens of posts already it makes it less likely to defend a POS assets; which not suprisingly improved more defense oriented permanent POS sets as defense measures to protect POCO's particularly in systems with one or no stations.
Many parts of the planned changes as stated produce at best a zero-net gain at worse a negative-net gain for anybody anywhere operating a POS.
All this rot about is Risk vs Reward completely ignores the Commitment : Reward ratio that exists.
Another thing completely overlooked is in starter systems it is nigh impossible to complete the S&I career mission involving manufactering in bonus isk period (or at all) due to bloat of jobs in those systems*, sure it will open slots now but at the density of use in those systems it would break a new player's wallet.
*note: In a previous post I had stated that I had seen rare occasions of manufactoring slot max loads in my travels, I didn't happen to recall this particular scourge until later, it has been quite some time since I actually operated out of a newbie system or done career missions. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
391
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:30:00 -
[1783] - Quote
it'll certainly be interesting to see how this plays out, my guess is there will be what I previously jokingly called the 'Laziness Event Horizon' about 4-5 jumps out from the trade hubs where the extra cost will balance against the intrinsic laziness in people who don't want to travel further. I toyed with calling it the 'Brown ring of Arsedness' but the thought of that being quite a mouthful put me off my lunch.
The sucking sound will be the souls leaving the bodies of those who choose to move to null of course ...
I definitely look forward to the changes as it gives me a whole order of magnitude more stuff to learn. Whether I think they are right or wrong (from my perspective of course) or I agree with the push to move people to null is entirely separate to that. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:31:00 -
[1784] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Also, while null is close to moon goo and the better mins, it is not a great source of things like tritanium.
A year ago, lots of trit was added to Spod, and smaller amounts to high end, so trit is not nearly as hard to come by in null as it used to was. Nox remains a bit of a bottleneck.
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Maybe null miners will mine more of it (why when you have access to ABCs and solid sources of ice?), but with the module compression nerf getting the low ends may still be an issue in null.
You have to mine it all to get the cluster to respawn in a timely manner.
The ability to anchor the new ore compression array in high sec is going to be a god send for null industry. WAY, WAY better than transporting minerals as guns and other mods.
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: So I find this problem some what dubious and just can't help that it is just self-serving bull dung being shoveled by somebody upset that they are losing an economic profits.
Which we do not even know is going to happen. More likely, prices will adjust.
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:31:00 -
[1785] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Oh and another thing for the whiney players in this thread. Cost does not determine price. You just just dropped back about 200 years in terms of economics if you think this. cost of inputs is the most significant factor in the price of most manufactured eve items most of the time
No. It is one part of the process to determine prices.
Price is determined by supply (i.e. costs--marginal costs to be specific) and demand. No demand, no price to take the extreme example irrespective of costs.
The point is that while a shift in costs will result in a shift in the price, the entire cost shift is rarely paid by the consumer/buyer.
This cost change (the 0-14%) is very, very much like a tax. As such, the tax incidence will depend on the relative slopes (with respect to price) of supply and demand. That is both the buyer and seller will be paying it. And if the demand curve is flat relative to the supply curve, then the supplier will be paying most of the tax.
Several people in this thread have stated the tax will ultimately be paid by the final consumer...which is false. Prices are not going to jump by 14% across all goods due to this tax. For example, is the demand for the Nestor elastic? If so then it is unlikely the price will go up by 200 million isk. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:46:00 -
[1786] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Also, while null is close to moon goo and the better mins, it is not a great source of things like tritanium.
A year ago, lots of trit was added to Spod, and smaller amounts to high end, so trit is not nearly as hard to come by in null as it used to was. Nox remains a bit of a bottleneck. Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Maybe null miners will mine more of it (why when you have access to ABCs and solid sources of ice?), but with the module compression nerf getting the low ends may still be an issue in null.
You have to mine it all to get the cluster to respawn in a timely manner. The ability to anchor the new ore compression array in high sec is going to be a god send for null industry. WAY, WAY better than transporting minerals as guns and other mods. Kun'ii Zenya wrote: So I find this problem some what dubious and just can't help that it is just self-serving bull dung being shoveled by somebody upset that they are losing an economic profits.
Which we do not even know is going to happen. More likely, prices will adjust.
On the last point I agree. Whether or not the new prices are going to be "good" or "bad' remains to be seen. But even when CCP really boogered things up (e.g. technetium) it did not ruin the economy. Things adjusted and most players didn't even notice.
As for the compression arrays in HS that is indeed a boon to NS given that module compression is going the way of the dodo. That is, my guess is with the compression arrays, NS will still source a significant chunk of low ends via HS. And for miners the price of raw ore will likely go up. I could see the market for raw ore get a nice boost once the refine changes go into effect. You sell to a NS alt, who compresses it in an array, then ship it to null where they can get a better refine on the ore. Depends on how it all works out in the end...i.e. the underlying mathematics.
Or...we need to wait. And realize that none of these things are cast in stone. For example, if the "tax" on slots starts out too steep (i.e. everything hits that 14% mark) and it is BadGäó CCP can always flatten out the tax curve--i.e. make it less progressive.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7036
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:46:00 -
[1787] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Price is determined by supply (i.e. costs--marginal costs to be specific) and demand. No demand, no price to take the extreme example irrespective of costs.
i repeat: cost of inputs is the most significant factor in the price of most manufactured eve items most of the time
what you are telling me is what I already know: that there are very rare edge cases where this is not the case (hence the "most items" and "most of the time"). nonthless what I said is correct, and what you said ("Cost does not determine price.") is technically true but extremely misleading unless you understand how limited the statement's applicability is Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:56:00 -
[1788] - Quote
Flash Phoenix wrote: Any item could be made in null sec, perhaps just not much profit or worth the effort. The null sec high profit / high risk items should not be just capital items or items that only old players with high skill points can make or acquire.
It is a market driven economy. Prices adjust to costs. If price is too much above cost, more people will start producing. If price is below cost, people stop producing.
Flash Phoenix wrote: High Risk and High Profit its such a simple deal and has game content.
Simple in theory, but has proven to be a beotch to actually implement. As I stated yesterday, I've spent roughly equal amounts of time in null and high sec in my years of playing EVE. I've lost far more mining barges and exhumers to high sec gank than I have lost in hull.
Flash Phoenix wrote: This industry balance deal is such a mess when all we need is some new content and game play.
The new content is either limited, meaning tightly controlled and rented out (officer spawn) for huge money, meaning higher profits for the masters than the people actually exploiting the content....
Or it is unlimited, and the relatively safety of null means prices crash, or ISK creation explodes and CCP is forced to nerf to stop the inflow of new ISK.
Null ABC ores were envisioned as being way more profitable than high sec. The problem is, so many of them are mined in relative safety, that it crashed the prices to the point that they are about the same profitability of high sec ores. In fact, to get ABCs to respawn, we have to mine out an entire ore cluster, including rocks that are at or below the average high sec mining profitability.
Now calcualte how much time we sit in a POS or in station because there is a non-blue within half a doen jumps... or the REAL killed of null profitability, the cloaky camper...
You end up with null sec mining that is no more, and frequently less profitable than high sec, despite the intentions of CCP that the ABCs would be more profiatble. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:03:00 -
[1789] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Price is determined by supply (i.e. costs--marginal costs to be specific) and demand. No demand, no price to take the extreme example irrespective of costs.
i repeat: cost of inputs is the most significant factor in the price of most manufactured eve items most of the time what you are telling me is what I already know: that there are very rare edge cases where this is not the case (hence the "most items" and "most of the time"). nonthless what I said is correct, and what you said ("Cost does not determine price.") is technically true but extremely misleading unless you understand how limited the statement's applicability is
I think the key is "manufactured items". When there are alternatives to manufactured.. like.. say... M1-M4 named rat drop that are better than we can manufacture (without invention or T2 BPO), then the price of the item is not set by the manufacture price (since we cannot manufacture the M1-M4).
For items that rats do not drop, like rigs... then we absolutely see a direct correlation be tween cost to manufacture and sale price.
Some may look at T2 and see the price of invention + manufacture makes producing the item unprofitable. This is the case, ONLY if the demand can be more than met with the available supply of T2 BPOs. Then, those items sell at or above the manufacture cost of using the T2 BPO.
So, what we see is that for the "manufactured" items, cost is absolutely the controlling factor in the sales price. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:03:00 -
[1790] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Price is determined by supply (i.e. costs--marginal costs to be specific) and demand. No demand, no price to take the extreme example irrespective of costs.
i repeat: cost of inputs is the most significant factor in the price of most manufactured eve items most of the time what you are telling me is what I already know: that there are very rare edge cases where this is not the case (hence the "most items" and "most of the time"). nonthless what I said is correct, and what you said ("Cost does not determine price.") is technically true but extremely misleading unless you understand how limited the statement's applicability is
It is significant to an industry player because it is the part they feel they have control over and can make spreadsheets for. But demand is still significant.
For example, the cynabal....
With a rebalancing of that ship will the price go up or down. Based on what I've read I'm going to hazard a guess of down...maybe alot.
Has the cost side changed? Again from what I've read, no.
What has changed? The demand. Why? Changes in the ships attributes.
But you are right, we are arguing fine points to an extent. But fine points that other posters here seem to be either completely ignorant of or are deliberately leaving out in favor of their preferred outcome. |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:07:00 -
[1791] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474708#post4474708Quote:The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs.
Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs. --emphasis added Learn to read. So the same cost issue facing HS dwellers will apply to NS as well. It was posted in this thread over a week ago.
Take a pill dude.
Becasue I didn't read each and every one of the 1600+ posts in this thread, I do not know how to read? Excuse me for having a job, wife, kids, life!
Frequently, dev posted comments like this end up getting put back into the original article as updates, and I did check the OP for updates.
AND, what I said was "I have not seen". Since everyone was talking about it, I assumed it was correct. I was simply saynig that I had not seen it myself. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:13:00 -
[1792] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:It is significant to an industry player because it is the part they feel they have control over and can make spreadsheets for. But demand is still significant. For example, the cynabal.... With a rebalancing of that ship will the price go up or down. Based on what I've read I'm going to hazard a guess of down...maybe alot. Has the cost side changed? Again from what I've read, no. What has changed? The demand. Why? Changes in the ships attributes. But you are right, we are arguing fine points to an extent. But fine points that other posters here seem to be either completely ignorant of or are deliberately leaving out in favor of their preferred outcome.
Cynabal, being pirate faction, relies on the drop of BPCs from rats or purchase from null NPC loyalty points stores. That is where the bulk of the profitability comes from, and the part effected by supply and demand.
Add up the manufacture cost, inclsuing a BPC and the minerals, and the profit margins are as thin as all other manufactured goods. If they were not, than people would buy up BPCs, then build and sell ships, pushing up the cost of BPCs and down the cost of ships, until the profitability is gone.
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:24:00 -
[1793] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Price is determined by supply (i.e. costs--marginal costs to be specific) and demand. No demand, no price to take the extreme example irrespective of costs.
i repeat: cost of inputs is the most significant factor in the price of most manufactured eve items most of the time what you are telling me is what I already know: that there are very rare edge cases where this is not the case (hence the "most items" and "most of the time"). nonthless what I said is correct, and what you said ("Cost does not determine price.") is technically true but extremely misleading unless you understand how limited the statement's applicability is I think the key is "manufactured items". When there are alternatives to manufactured.. like.. say... M1-M4 named rat drop that are better than we can manufacture (without invention or T2 BPO), then the price of the item is not set by the manufacture price (since we cannot manufacture the M1-M4). For items that rats do not drop, like rigs... then we absolutely see a direct correlation be tween cost to manufacture and sale price. Some may look at T2 and see the price of invention + manufacture makes producing the item unprofitable. This is the case, ONLY if the demand can be more than met with the available supply of T2 BPOs. Then, those items sell at or above the manufacture cost of using the T2 BPO. So, what we see is that for the "manufactured" items, cost is absolutely the controlling factor in the sales price.
No not even for manufactured items. See my previous post. Demand is still a factor...change that, and leave costs alone and it can have a significant impact on any given market. For example, did the rebalancing of guns help or hurt the rail guns market? |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:35:00 -
[1794] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:The more I hear of this discussion the more I'm convinced that everyone is getting screwed with expected change.
CCP is creating an ISK sink, plain and simple. ISK comes in, ISK has to go out. It doesn't really go out when a mission runner buys ammo or mods, because that ISK (other than small market fees and tiny slot fees) just goes to another player.
So now, some % of that ISK will actually leave the game, in the form of higher slot fees.
People are not going to manufacture at a loss. Initally, prices will go up to match higher costs.
The mission runners will see profitability go down (higher ammo costs, lower melt loot prices). Some will park their missioning ships and go mining instead (as it will be more profitable than missioning). Then price of minerals will fall until mining again matches profitability of missioning. Once equalibrium is reached.
It is, in fact, because everyone is getting screwed, that no one is really getting screwed. The market will adjust and go on. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7036
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:39:00 -
[1795] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: It is significant to an industry player because it is the part they feel they have control over and can make spreadsheets for. But demand is still significant.
demand is a minor factor that in no way affects prices to anything approaching the magnitude that costs does for manufactured goods in virtually all cases
you are trying to make a bad nitpicky argument: you are technically correct but your approach to the subject is completely wrong because you can't shut up about an incredibly minor factor while poo-poohing the most significant factor
when it comes to manufactured goods demand is irrelevant in most situations except to the effect that it has a slight effect on the margin over production cost you typically see in the market (lower demand generally means higher margin because you're stuck trying to sell longer, but sometimes if demand is so low it's negative as people try to dump their useless items at any price)
this effect is incredibly minor in most cases and not worth discussing most of the time and is several orders of magnitude less relevant than you keep implying it is
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: No not even for manufactured items. See my previous post. Demand is still a factor...change that, and leave costs alone and it can have a significant impact on any given market. For example, did the rebalancing of guns help or hurt the rail guns market?
impact yes, significant no (except in edge cases like where an item has been suddenly rebalanced and the market has not yet settled down - an effect that is strictly temporary as demand can jump instantly while supply takes a short period to adjust) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:39:00 -
[1796] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:It is significant to an industry player because it is the part they feel they have control over and can make spreadsheets for. But demand is still significant. For example, the cynabal.... With a rebalancing of that ship will the price go up or down. Based on what I've read I'm going to hazard a guess of down...maybe alot. Has the cost side changed? Again from what I've read, no. What has changed? The demand. Why? Changes in the ships attributes. But you are right, we are arguing fine points to an extent. But fine points that other posters here seem to be either completely ignorant of or are deliberately leaving out in favor of their preferred outcome. Cynabal, being pirate faction, relies on the drop of BPCs from rats or purchase from null NPC loyalty points stores. That is where the bulk of the profitability comes from, and the part effected by supply and demand. Add up the manufacture cost, inclsuing a BPC and the minerals, and the profit margins are as thin as all other manufactured goods. If they were not, than people would buy up BPCs, then build and sell ships, pushing up the cost of BPCs and down the cost of ships, until the profitability is gone.
You do realize that talking about supply and demand in terms of setting price while at the same time arguing it is all supply (i.e. costs) is rather weird, right?
The point is that with a change in the ships attributes the demand for that ship has changed and so has the price.
And I just looked at the Jita price graph. Prior to April 8th (the date of the TMC article I linked) the price was around 180 million isk. Then after the article the 5 day moving average plummets down to 165 million. Why? Because demand has dropped (and supply likely increased as people who had cynabal's dumped them). But with the decreased demand they needed to sell them at a lower price. In that short time period did manufacturing costs change appreciably? If not then then the price movements in that time period are likely all demand driven.
Of course, then the market rebounded, but it has yet to recover its original price...and it probably wont as the long term trend has been downwards.
And the point is that demand does matter. You look at the current price and your costs, as a manufacturer, and hope that you finish up your production before there is a significant price swing...which in part could be due to demand. For example, if a big block says, "Hey were aren't going to use this doctrine anymore, and instead are switching to this one." That change on the demand side could help/hurt you.
Case in point: The CFC and the TFI. Did that doctrine hurt or help the price of the TFI? My guess it "helped it" (i.e. drove it up). Were costs changed in any significant manner? No. Did the switch to Baltec fleets help the megathron market? I'm guessing yes. Were costs changed in any significant way? I'm pretty sure the BPOs did not change. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7036
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:41:00 -
[1797] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: You do realize that talking about supply and demand in terms of setting price while at the same time arguing it is all supply (i.e. costs) is rather weird, right?
look i'm glad you liked econ 101 but it doesn't even apply to the real world (nor is it intended to, it is a collection of incredibly simplistic models designed to make you understand certain concepts rather than actually be useful for anything) let alone a video game Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:42:00 -
[1798] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: No not even for manufactured items. See my previous post. Demand is still a factor...change that, and leave costs alone and it can have a significant impact on any given market. For example, did the rebalancing of guns help or hurt the rail guns market?
Demand is a factor in the COST of the input to the manufacturing process, but is NOT a factor in the manufacturing process.
Ships built from limited BPOs.... the value of the BPO is set by supply and demand, but the profitability of building (including the cost of the BPO) is not a factor.
Ships built for readily available BPOs, like M0 ships. The demand for the individual ships is irrelevant to the sale price. If there is demand for 1000, then people will buy and research enough BPOs to easily produce the 1000. If demand is 1000 billion,,, then players will buy and research enough BPOs to supply the 1000 billion!
Yes, the price of minerals is determined by supply and demand. The price of limited availability BPCs is based on supply and demand. The price of salvage is effected by supply and demand.
The profit of manufacturing IS not effected by supply and demand, becauase the cost of the input and output adjust to the market, and the manufacturers will adjust to build whatever has the most profit, instantly killing the profit.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7036
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:45:00 -
[1799] - Quote
manufactured items tend to stabilize around a certain small profit over cost. there are many factors that go into how large that margin is (how liquid the market is, the cost of each item, the build time, etc), and demand is one of those factors that plays into that small margin
but that small margin is a small margin over cost so we're discussing something that can alter prices about 3% as much as the cost of the actual inputs
in other words it's about two orders of magnitude less relevant than input costs, or "basically irrelevant" Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:47:00 -
[1800] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: You do realize that talking about supply and demand in terms of setting price while at the same time arguing it is all supply (i.e. costs) is rather weird, right?
look i'm glad you liked econ 101 but it doesn't even apply to the real world (nor is it intended to, it is a collection of incredibly simplistic models designed to make you understand certain concepts rather than actually be useful for anything) let alone a video game
The real world, we hace intellectual property rights, that provide the bulk of actual profits.
Apple is profitable because of copyrights and trademark laws. If anyone could manufacture an Iphone, without concern for copyright and trademarks? Then they'd sell for $100 and not be very profitable for anyone... See the PC hardware industry where industry standard architecture and off the shelf parts make the actual computers early identicle, and companies rely on name and service to attempt to get you to pay more.
EVE's manufacturing is like PC hardware, where everyone is building and selling the exact same stuff, so the profitability of all of it is just a tiny bit above cost. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7036
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:52:00 -
[1801] - Quote
demand essentially dictates the price of items produced at a constant supply or is a byproduct of something else (e.g. rat drops, nobody rats more if suddenly meta 2 mods double in price, and moon goo which is basically produced at a constant rate unless its so worthless nobody bothers to mine the full supply)
demand heavily impacts items that are produced in a specific proportion (moon goo again, minerals mined from cyclable 0.0 mining anoms, salvage) due to the 'bottlenecking effect' : when the demand for those items is in a proportion noticably different from the proportion they are produced in, the most in-demand items capture all of the value while the less demanded items become worthless
when it comes to manufacturing however demand is essentially irrelevant most of the time: demand will affect supply and that plays out when demand suddenly changes (forcing lower supply or higher supply and creating dramatic margin shifts until it moves) but in the absence of sudden demand shifts the market will have settled to a small profit and the price is dictated by cost
change cost, change price in a nearly 1:1 ratio permanently
change demand, you change price for a short time but it will still tend to settle back at cost+% and as soon as that short time is over demand is essentially irrelevant Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:52:00 -
[1802] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:manufactured items tend to stabilize around a certain small profit over cost. there are many factors that go into how large that margin is (how liquid the market is, the cost of each item, the build time, etc), and demand is one of those factors that plays into that small margin
but that small margin is a small margin over cost so we're discussing something that can alter prices about 3% as much as the cost of the actual inputs
in other words it's about two orders of magnitude less relevant than input costs, or "basically irrelevant"
Yep. My spreadsheets are based on priofit/hr (mostly dirvn by input costs divided by manufacturig time). I do include a small market liquidity multiple. How long I'm going to sit on the output, and how many times I'm going to have to adjust my price in the penny wars of the trade hub, are inputs.
Building the most popular ammo type for a region, then putting the ammo up for sale in the main missioning hub, I'm assured quick turn.
Though, the other thing I notice is that more than half my "manufacturing profit" is really trade and transport profit. Buying below market, selling above, and getting the bought mins to manufacture point and manufactured goods to sell location... Factor that in, and manufacture profits are stupid, stupid thin. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:53:00 -
[1803] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: It is significant to an industry player because it is the part they feel they have control over and can make spreadsheets for. But demand is still significant.
demand is a minor factor that in no way affects prices to anything approaching the magnitude that costs does for manufactured goods in virtually all cases you are trying to make a bad nitpicky argument: you are technically correct but your approach to the subject is completely wrong because you can't shut up about an incredibly minor factor while poo-poohing the most significant factor when it comes to manufactured goods demand is irrelevant in most situations except to the effect that it has a slight effect on the margin over production cost you typically see in the market (lower demand generally means higher margin because you're stuck trying to sell longer, but sometimes if demand is so low it's negative as people try to dump their useless items at any price) this effect is incredibly minor in most cases and not worth discussing most of the time and is several orders of magnitude less relevant than you keep implying it is Kun'ii Zenya wrote: No not even for manufactured items. See my previous post. Demand is still a factor...change that, and leave costs alone and it can have a significant impact on any given market. For example, did the rebalancing of guns help or hurt the rail guns market?
impact yes, significant no (except in edge cases like where an item has been suddenly rebalanced and the market has not yet settled down - an effect that is strictly temporary as demand can jump instantly while supply takes a short period to adjust)
No I'm not, I've pointed to several examples.
When drone assist was king, and people figured it out, did that change in demand help or hurt the sentry drone market? Did the change in drone assist change the market?
If you answer no, then you are just simply wrong. And that was all demand side. Blocks/alliances changing doctrines is also a demand side factor that can move a market--i.e. the price.
I'm not talking about the decisions that an industrialist makes, but about the price. The price is set by supply and demand. To argue otherwise is just silly.
And look at the market data...prices move up and down, is that all just costs? BPOs, are changing that much? Or is it shifts in say doctrines, or was it a big fight? Did B-R increase or decrease the demand for tritanium? |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:57:00 -
[1804] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: You do realize that talking about supply and demand in terms of setting price while at the same time arguing it is all supply (i.e. costs) is rather weird, right?
look i'm glad you liked econ 101 but it doesn't even apply to the real world (nor is it intended to, it is a collection of incredibly simplistic models designed to make you understand certain concepts rather than actually be useful for anything) let alone a video game
All models are simplistic, even in physics, when compared to reality. This is a basic tenet of the scientific method. A model that is as complex as reality is going to be useless because it would have so many variables.
And yeah, it applies to video games...which is why CCP has an economist, and economists study MMO economies. They are basically huge ass simulations that they get people to pay to be part of vs. paying students or graduate students to be part of a simulation.
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:02:00 -
[1805] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: You do realize that talking about supply and demand in terms of setting price while at the same time arguing it is all supply (i.e. costs) is rather weird, right?
look i'm glad you liked econ 101 but it doesn't even apply to the real world (nor is it intended to, it is a collection of incredibly simplistic models designed to make you understand certain concepts rather than actually be useful for anything) let alone a video game The real world, we hace intellectual property rights, that provide the bulk of actual profits. Apple is profitable because of copyrights and trademark laws. If anyone could manufacture an Iphone, without concern for copyright and trademarks? Then they'd sell for $100 and not be very profitable for anyone... See the PC hardware industry where industry standard architecture and off the shelf parts make the actual computers early identicle, and companies rely on name and service to attempt to get you to pay more. EVE's manufacturing is like PC hardware, where everyone is building and selling the exact same stuff, so the profitability of all of it is just a tiny bit above cost.
Actually no. If you look at the work of guys like David Levine you'll realize that intellectual property rights are a relatively recent phenomenon and have only expanded significantly even more recently. Prior to that there was lots of economic activity and profits.
Oh, and intellectual property rights don't just create profits, but economic profits--i.e. they grant temporary monopoly rights allowing the owner to charge monopoly prices.*
*Technically it is more along the lines monopolistic competition, which is different than monopoly, but this is a fine point they rarely cover in economics 101. And I wouldn't expect you or Weaslior to appreciate it. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7036
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:03:00 -
[1806] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: All models are simplistic, even in physics, when compared to reality. This is a basic tenet of the scientific method. A model that is as complex as reality is going to be useless because it would have so many variables.
yeah that doesn't justify "well chem 101 modeled atoms as billiard balls connected with sticks so it would be a violation of the scientific method to not use that to predict things"
models exist for a purpose. models can be predictive or explanatory: these are models that are intended to understand or predict the world and in some cases may be 'simplistic' (though when they deliberately simplify you are expected to know when they no longer apply: newtonian physics is a really handy model as long as you know it doesn't work below a certain scale)
that doesn't justify using a model that isn't even intended to be predictive or explanatory, and is just basically **** that was made up so you can understand a concept
you are clearly in the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" stage with econ, where you've learned enough that you think you know something but you haven't learned enough to know you don't actually know anything (which is irritatingly common with econ 101 people)
your argument is wrong, you're trying to appear smart and you're not succeeding (i both know eve's economy very well so I know when your model doesn't work, and I also took a lot more econ classes than econ 101 so I know when you're trying to apply introductory concepts that are not actually applicable to anything)
just stop
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: And yeah, it applies to video games...which is why CCP has an economist, and economists study MMO economies. They are basically huge ass simulations that they get people to pay to be part of vs. paying students or graduate students to be part of a simulation.
certain actual economic principles and models apply to a video game market in addition to the real market
econ 101 models apply to nothing Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:07:00 -
[1807] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: when it comes to manufacturing however demand is essentially irrelevant most of the time: demand will affect supply and that plays out when demand suddenly changes (forcing lower supply or higher supply and creating dramatic margin shifts until it moves) but in the absence of sudden demand shifts the market will have settled to a small profit and the price is dictated by cost
Correct. Manufacturing is the middle man that passes the supply/demand pricing mechanism from end user to input supplier. Supply/demand effect sale price of the finished good, and that same supply/demand pushed the price right through manufacturing, to the manufacturing input. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:28:00 -
[1808] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Weaselior wrote:manufactured items tend to stabilize around a certain small profit over cost. there are many factors that go into how large that margin is (how liquid the market is, the cost of each item, the build time, etc), and demand is one of those factors that plays into that small margin
but that small margin is a small margin over cost so we're discussing something that can alter prices about 3% as much as the cost of the actual inputs
in other words it's about two orders of magnitude less relevant than input costs, or "basically irrelevant" Yep. My spreadsheets are based on priofit/hr (mostly dirvn by input costs divided by manufacturig time). I do include a small market liquidity multiple. How long I'm going to sit on the output, and how many times I'm going to have to adjust my price in the penny wars of the trade hub, are inputs. Building the most popular ammo type for a region, then putting the ammo up for sale in the main missioning hub, I'm assured quick turn. Though, the other thing I notice is that more than half my "manufacturing profit" is really trade and transport profit. Buying below market, selling above, and getting the bought mins to manufacture point and manufactured goods to sell location... Factor that in, and manufacture profits are stupid, stupid thin.
Ok, let me try this....
Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Your posts, and Weaselior's, pretty much all admit this.
With regards to the various price changes that will result from these changes to industry, I'm arguing they wont be as horrible as some are claiming because, both the demand and supply side will eat part of whatever cost increase there is.
Further, to the extent that there is more competition on the supply side that will also mitigate price increases if there are any.
Could this cause a potential death spiral in the market? Yeah, but even when we had a huge mistake such as with techneitum that did not occur. There was not a death spiral when T2 items were just based off of BPOs. Nor was there a death spiral when T2 BPOs were nerfed hard with invention. All three of these resulted in significant changes to the markets.
The claims of disaster in this thread are most likely overwrought and foolish.
Will it mean updating and reworking spreadsheets, the death of some industries, and changes in the game? Yes. But hey, that stuff happens, HTFU and adapt...or not.
Is that reasonable LHA Tarawa and Weaselior?
And another part of the reason I made my comment about price being determined by supply and demand, were bonehead statements like the Nestor price going up by 200 million. And the resulting decimation of that market. Players quitting in en mass and cat's trying to breed with dogs.
The only way that could happen is if the demand for Nestors is price inelastic. But then guess what? The quantity of Nestors demanded wont change due to the price. Its inelastic, perfectly so...and as a result the same number of Nestors will be bought irrespective of the price.
In other words, comments are being made by people who did not sit through econ 101...or if they did they forgot it all or did badly in the class. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:30:00 -
[1809] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Weaselior wrote: when it comes to manufacturing however demand is essentially irrelevant most of the time: demand will affect supply and that plays out when demand suddenly changes (forcing lower supply or higher supply and creating dramatic margin shifts until it moves) but in the absence of sudden demand shifts the market will have settled to a small profit and the price is dictated by cost
Correct. Manufacturing is the middle man that passes the supply/demand pricing mechanism from end user to input supplier. Supply/demand effect sale price of the finished good, and that same supply/demand pushed the price right through manufacturing, to the manufacturing input.
Wrong.
No demand. No price.
No supply. No price.
Heck no demand or no supply, then no market and no price.
Thus, to say demand is irrelevant is just a erudite as saying supply is irrelevant. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:37:00 -
[1810] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: All models are simplistic, even in physics, when compared to reality. This is a basic tenet of the scientific method. A model that is as complex as reality is going to be useless because it would have so many variables.
yeah that doesn't justify "well chem 101 modeled atoms as billiard balls connected with sticks so it would be a violation of the scientific method to not use that to predict things" models exist for a purpose. models can be predictive or explanatory: these are models that are intended to understand or predict the world and in some cases may be 'simplistic' (though when they deliberately simplify you are expected to know when they no longer apply: newtonian physics is a really handy model as long as you know it doesn't work below a certain scale) that doesn't justify using a model that isn't even intended to be predictive or explanatory, and is just basically **** that was made up so you can understand a concept you are clearly in the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" stage with econ, where you've learned enough that you think you know something but you haven't learned enough to know you don't actually know anything (which is irritatingly common with econ 101 people) your argument is wrong, you're trying to appear smart and you're not succeeding (i both know eve's economy very well so I know when your model doesn't work, and I also took a lot more econ classes than econ 101 so I know when you're trying to apply introductory concepts that are not actually applicable to anything) just stop Kun'ii Zenya wrote: And yeah, it applies to video games...which is why CCP has an economist, and economists study MMO economies. They are basically huge ass simulations that they get people to pay to be part of vs. paying students or graduate students to be part of a simulation.
certain actual economic principles and models apply to a video game market in addition to the real market econ 101 models apply to nothing
No, econ models are generally best used for an explanatory purpose. To understand how markets work.
Using those same models for prediction are problematic.
Still, we can use these models to get some idea of how these changes will work.
Dinsdale has been claiming prices will go up by 14%, at least for the Nestor.
I contend that based a simple model of supply and demand, this is foolish. It is foolish because it is unlikely that the demand for Nestor's has a price elasticity of 0 (perfectly price inelastic--i.e. the same number of Nestors will be bought at 100 isk/Nestor or 1 trillion isk/Nestor).
This is why I wrote that price is set by demand and supply. Even if the manufacturers see a 14% increase in their costs they cannot pass 100% of that cost increase along to the buyers because the demand curve is sloped downwards with respect to price. That is as the price goes up people will buy fewer and fewer Nestors.
This is not a stupid claim or conclusion, even if the supply and demand model is stupid simple. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7036
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:43:00 -
[1811] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Ok, let me try this....
Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Your posts, and Weaselior's, pretty much all admit this.
wrong
stop trying to apply ~econ 101~ and read what I have explained to you in great detail
this stupid statement is the epitome of idiotic econ101 thinking, you do not understand the market and you do not understand that "here is a supply curve, here is a demand curve, look!" is anything but an extremely simplified model intended to teach you some really basic concepts you will need when you learn actual economics
what I have explained to you in great detail is the way the market actually functions in eve. you have gone cross-eyed and started regurgitating nonsense from your econ 101 lecture. this is obvious because at no point do your "examples" show any indication you've understood my points and have found problems with them: instead they are obvious things that my arguments already take into account.
you jumped into the thread to try to do a ~look at me im so smart~ and fell flat on your face and you're resorting to increasingly hysterical "but my Remedial Introduction To Economics 101 textbook says..." and trying to make points that at best are technically true and absolutely irrelevant to the discussion (and in actuality are generally wrong both as applied to the discussion and in the most nitpicky technical sense) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:47:00 -
[1812] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Ok, let me try this....
Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Your posts, and Weaselior's, pretty much all admit this.
wrong stop trying to apply ~econ 101~ and read what I have explained to you in great detail [snip]
No thanks, I'm done. You are just being stupid.
If it helps; you win.
Oh yeah, and its ironic...we both think these changes are going to be good in the long run. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:49:00 -
[1813] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Ok, let me try this....
Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Your posts, and Weaselior's, pretty much all admit this.
BUT, in EVE manufacturing, supply is 100% determined by the availability of the inputs to manufacturing. If there is a bottleneck to manufacturing, such as limited BPO/BPC, then the cost of the finished item is immediately passed through the manufacturing process to the limited input.
If there is not a bottleneck, such as items for which BPCs are easily available from NPC, then the price is set by input costs, mineral, salvage, etc. Supply quickly adjusts to meet demand if the price strays slighlty above or below the thin profit above cost.
Do not believe me? Look at the Cynabal that was bought up earlier. Check the cost of input, including the BPC. You will see that the manufacturing profit is super thin, with the supply/mechanism that determines the price of the ship, is immediatly and directly passed through manufacturing to the bottleneck BPC limitation.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7036
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:52:00 -
[1814] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: I contend that based a simple model of supply and demand, this is foolish. It is foolish because it is unlikely that the demand for Nestor's has a price elasticity of 0 (perfectly price inelastic--i.e. the same number of Nestors will be bought at 100 isk/Nestor or 1 trillion isk/Nestor).
you're dumb and your model is dumb and you don't understand what you're talking about
this is the issue: you do not know anything about this "simple model": you do not understand it and so you do not know when it applies and when it does not and as someone who does know what those models are for and what those terms mean it is painful that anyone might listen to you
the impact of supply and demand will affect exactly one price here: the price of the nestor bpc (because it's a garbage ship and will be supplied by drops from the nexus chips in drone space and be unprofitable to get from the lp store)
the price of the finished product will nearly entirely be dictated by the bpc cost and the minerals cost, with incredibly minor margin fluctuations (minor to the buyer, not the producer) that represent the low demand that will mean the producer has to hold the ship longer before it sells
you should be reading what i am telling you and learning about why the "can't do calculus, make it only require algebra" model does not apply to this situation and learning about how economics is considerably more complex than supply curves and demand curves and learning the limitations of that model: eve has a very simple economy so you can easily learn these somewhat more advanced topics
instead you are going cross-eyed and getting confused and regurgitating words and concepts you have memorized but not understood and stamping your feet anytime people don't praise you. you're not even able to understand what i've said and have continually been unable to distinguish, for example, between "most" and "all" (hint: you don't disprove a 'most' statement with 'a few examples') and "irrelevant" vs "not a factor at all" Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:56:00 -
[1815] - Quote
After going back to the EDITED first post an aspect that is proposed is remote running of jobs from containers. To that I say Kudos, brilliant, and about time. However not likely to change BP security issues especially if in a POS anybody who can remove the container in it's entirety can throw it in a personal hangar wait till an audit log reaches the point where you can repackage the container and bang repack it and and have it's contents.
The continued indication to have a tax levied on any POS no matter where is BS there is already associated cost operating a POS as it is, seriously is there gonna be a little customs agent audits maybe Scottie the Docking Clone has a cousin named Richard the Customs Agent Clone?
Removing standing restrictions in high-sec... it makes no sense there is no risk to losing a POS if every war-dec a corp packs up shop without worrying... "wait with those new guys we added we won't be able to reset it..."
Back to the BP must be in POS to use thing, it would stifle everything except POS structure fabrication since those HAVE to be done at a station or outpost. Transport of BP to and from trade hubs is bad enough, more than once I've had a ship ganked on undock at Jita with a several hundred mill un-researched BPO in the hold.
Dev's keep rethinking it, there some Good, a lot of bad, and way to much Ugly at the time of this post
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7036
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:57:00 -
[1816] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:No thanks, I'm done. You are just being stupid.
If it helps; you win.. this is the root cause of why you're dumb: rather than feel stupid and learn something, you refuse to learn so that you can retain feeling smart and just dismiss things you don't understand
admitting to yourself when you don't know something and figuring it out is how you actually learn things and improve Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:16:00 -
[1817] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Ok, let me try this....
Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Your posts, and Weaselior's, pretty much all admit this.
BUT, in EVE manufacturing, supply is 100% determined by the availability of the inputs to manufacturing. If there is a bottleneck to manufacturing, such as limited BPO/BPC, then the cost of the finished item is immediately passed through the manufacturing process to the limited input.
Regarding manufacturing and supply in Eve, I don't disagree.
As for passing along costs...here, let me explain how I was doing invention:
Like you I had spread sheets. Like you I had all sorts of data in there, various prices for all of my inputs, and so forth. I also had an expected price variable in there that I'd sell the finished product at.
Now if my costs went up, but the prices on the market did not I faced essentially 2 choices:
1. Sell at the existing prices and take less profit (losses were rare thankfully). 2. Wait and see if the cost increase showed up in the prices.
The problem with 2 is a bit more subtle in that by holding my stock to see if the price moves in my favor I have isk tied up that I couldn't put back into invention.
And even if the price goes up, some people buying those goods may no longer buy them at that price. Maybe they can switch from Minmatar to Amarr and avoid paying the higher price. Maybe they just don't have the isk at that time to buy the good.
So even with 2 I may not be able to recover all of the unexpected cost increase.
I guess I'm trying to say is that when I did invention I was more of a price taker for my final product. I could list it a cost + 25%, but somebody can always under cut my price. There are enough buyers and sellers in most T2 markets that the price* is determined by a bunch of people buying and selling. That you engage in price changing behavior with your own goods (i.e. the 0.01 isk war stuff) you too see yourself as a price taker too...more or less. Yes? No?
*Actually there is no single price, but a range of prices based on a bunch of sell and buy orders and people trying to undercut or outbid the competition. In this regard the supply-demand model is wrong. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:21:00 -
[1818] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:No thanks, I'm done. You are just being stupid.
If it helps; you win.. this is the root cause of why you're dumb: rather than feel stupid and learn something, you refuse to learn so that you can retain feeling smart and just dismiss things you don't understand admitting to yourself when you don't know something and figuring it out is how you actually learn things and improve
Look, I'm not the one claiming that my statment about the same number of Nestors selling at 100 isk and 1 trillion isk is dumb.
My guess, you didn't even read my post entirely.
But whatever. |
Albert Spear
meadhan oidhche cinneach Full Metal Militia
46
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:25:00 -
[1819] - Quote
Based on the discussion and time to reflect on the issues about POS and blueprint locking, I see two consequences - I don't know if they are intended or unintended.
1) Many industrialists with significant libraries of BPOs will move to single player corporations. Since they can not lock the blueprints down, and they can't use them from station on a POS, they will have no choice but to move out of multi-player corporations into single player (multi-toon) in most cases corporations to protect their library of high value prints. This may lead to an increase in solo player activity or it may lead to a number of alliances being created between solo-player corporations. Only time will tell. I suspect that industry as an activity will increasingly be done as solo play with little player to player interaction.
2) The number of corporate offices in stations will decline. Since the office can't be used to hold blueprints in safety anymore, many people will decide that it is far better to forgo the cost of the office. This becomes increasingly true if many of the corporations that are industry focused become single player corporations. The need for an office disappears.
Based on prior CCP posts on their goal of most social play, I have to wonder if this is in the spirit of those goals, or not.
It will be interesting anyway to see how this plays out over the next year. I for one am evaluating whether I stay in a multi-player corporation or not. I am also evaluating the future of the miner/industrialist role in Eve. It will be interesting to see about this time next year what the percentage of full time mining/industry players is. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:35:00 -
[1820] - Quote
Albert Spear wrote: 1) Many industrialists with significant libraries of BPOs will move to single player corporations. Since they can not lock the blueprints down, and they can't use them from station on a POS, they will have no choice but to move out of multi-player corporations into single player (multi-toon) in most cases corporations to protect their library of high value prints. This may lead to an increase in solo player activity or it may lead to a number of alliances being created between solo-player corporations. Only time will tell. I suspect that industry as an activity will increasingly be done as solo play with little player to player interaction.
Maybe. Keep in mind one reason people use POS currently is due to congestion in stations. That is going to change. If that means you can do away with the POS you can still lock the BP (I think, I thought that was a question answered by a Dev, but I could be wrong) and use it in station. So, if the price of doing stuff in station is not prohibitive (i.e. you still need the POS) then what you are predicting may not come to pass. |
|
Sunrise Aigele
Pemberley Enterprises BadWrongFun
29
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:44:00 -
[1821] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Thus, to say demand is irrelevant is just a erudite as saying supply is irrelevant.
There is a category of joke that illustrates the idea that something can be true, and useless.
In EVE, everything that can be manufactured is a commodity. The only exceptions, broadly, would be items manufactured from loyalty point stores, because loyalty points are odd (e.g., why the Nestor is so incredibly expensive despite low demand: because its price is set by the LP->ISK conversion rate achieved by Sisters Core Scanner Probes).
In a commodity market, there is no innovation in the product, only in the ways in which the product can be made in greater quantity and at lesser expense per unit. Demand is fairly reliable. Margins are low enough that although demand is technically significant, it pales in significance to cost. Your statement becomes more true when there is a disruption (a major new fleet meta, or a rebalance), but it quickly settles back down to business as usual, because the most significant variable by an order of magnitude is input cost.
I could argue that demand as constrained by buyer logistics is the only significant form: how many people here have swallowed a 50% markup on some kind of 1MN Afterburner rather than go 5 jumps out for a 2% markup, only because the real cost is so low that the markup amounts to mere thousands of ISK? Contrary to an alarming number of people in this thread, the hauling you do is not free (I am not considering carriers or jump freighters, clearly). How much is your time worth? That opportunity cost will set the premium you are willing to pay relative to the number of jumps you would have to make to avoid paying the premium. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7036
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:50:00 -
[1822] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Look, I'm not the one claiming that my statment about the same number of Nestors selling at 100 isk and 1 trillion isk is dumb.
My guess, you didn't even read my post entirely.
But whatever.
i ignored that statement as it was entirely irrelevant: that you thought it was relevant indicated you did not understand the discussion. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7037
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:56:00 -
[1823] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Regarding manufacturing and supply in Eve, I don't disagree.
As for passing along costs...here, let me explain how I was doing invention:
this entire story is you discovering return on capital over time is different than profit per unit, and is important (this is, incidentally, why low-demand markets stabilize at higher profits per unit)
it is not relevant to our discussion on price. it is you realizing that your invention business is about earning a percentage return on your money and that a loss on a unit may be preferable to keeping the isk tied up making no money for a long period of time.
the entire story is the short period when demand changes and the market has not yet stabilized, something I've alluded to many times in my posts and you seem to have not understood. if you hold onto your units you can be assured you will sell them eventually at the new cost+%: that just might be a stupid decision because you spend so long making no return on that amount that you wind up with a lower roi than if you'd taken a loss immediately and reinvested in more profitable enterprises. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15210
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:59:00 -
[1824] - Quote
The last few pages of this thread have been quite educational, I must say. Here is my CSM9 endorsement list - vote for diversity of expertise : Ali Aras-á Mangala Solaris-á Mike Azariah-á Steve Ronuken James Arget-á Xander Phoena-á Sugar Kyle-á corbexx-á mynnna-á progodlegend-á Psychotic Monk-á Jayne Fillion
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
878
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 19:34:00 -
[1825] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Weaselior wrote: when it comes to manufacturing however demand is essentially irrelevant most of the time: demand will affect supply and that plays out when demand suddenly changes (forcing lower supply or higher supply and creating dramatic margin shifts until it moves) but in the absence of sudden demand shifts the market will have settled to a small profit and the price is dictated by cost
Correct. Manufacturing is the middle man that passes the supply/demand pricing mechanism from end user to input supplier. Supply/demand effect sale price of the finished good, and that same supply/demand pushed the price right through manufacturing, to the manufacturing input. Wrong. No demand. No price. No supply. No price. Heck no demand or no supply, then no market and no price. Thus, to say demand is irrelevant is just a erudite as saying supply is irrelevant.
You keep confusing "price" with "manufacturing profit".
Manufacturing profit = sale price of manufactured output - purchase price of manufacturing input.
Supply and demand set price of BOTH the finished goods AND the input.
Manufacturing is the tiny middle ground, squeezes by supply/demand set prices on both sides. That tiny middle ground is the tiny markup,. the profit from manufacturing.
There are two main cases to consider.
1) No bottlenecks to manufacture (m0 ships). Demand for ship changes, tiny change in price, profits adjust up or down, people make more or less to return prices to the point just above cost.
2) Bottleneck to manufacturing (faction ships). Demand for ships change, demand for the BPC to build them changes, both price of ship and BPC adjust. The tiny space between output and input costs remains the same.
Either way, the profit from manufacturing remains the tine space between the market forces effecting both its input and output costs.
IF that space started to grow, more people would manufacture and shrink it back down. If the space started to shrink, people would stop manufacturing and the gap would return. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
880
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 19:56:00 -
[1826] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:[ As for passing along costs...here, let me explain how I was doing invention:
Like you I had spread sheets. Like you I had all sorts of data in there, various prices for all of my inputs, and so forth. I also had an expected price variable in there that I'd sell the finished product at.
Now if my costs went up, but the prices on the market did not I faced essentially 2 choices:
1. Sell at the existing prices and take less profit (losses were rare thankfully). 2. Wait and see if the cost increase showed up in the prices.
The problem with 2 is a bit more subtle in that by holding my stock to see if the price moves in my favor I have isk tied up that I couldn't put back into invention.
What you are talking about is not profit or loss from manufacturing, but rather from market moves.
At the time you decided to put the job into invention, your profit from invention was set. Now, perhaps it was unrealizable profit, because the market moved before you got a chance to sell, and you took a market loss. Two totally different things, and you REALLY should look at them differently.
In null, one station has perfect refine, and lots of people mine there. PvPers rally out of a different system 10 jumps away, and theyre are actually open manufacturing slots there.
I buy my minerals sub market in the mining hub, That is market profit. I move the minerals to where the slots are, where minerals are worth more. That is transportation profit. I manufacture. Tiny manufacturing profit. I manipulate the markets in the PvP rally hub by ensuring the PvPers have to pay top dollar when they need something fast. That is marketing profit again.
If I happen to pick up an expensive BPC from a rat drop, that is PVE profit. If I build from that BPC and sell for high price, the entire sale price is not profit. Only the tiny markup between input (including the BPC) price and sale price (not including my market manipultion profits of getting the PvPers to pay above going rate). |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
88
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 19:58:00 -
[1827] - Quote
@CCP: What's going to be the new m3 of the compressed ore blocks? CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty...
|
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 22:03:00 -
[1828] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:@CCP: What's going to be the new m3 of the compressed ore blocks?
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65852/1/Compressedore2.png
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65852/1/Compressedice.png |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 22:09:00 -
[1829] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Another aspect keep in mind is that currently slots have a hard limit once they are full they are full you have to wait. This limits the amount of production at any given time. Now by removing that hard limit and essentially giving stations and infinite number of slots but with a sliding cost scale that is It removes a hard constraint on production. Given that supply currently can be severely limited due to the limitations on slots it stands to reason that prices currently may be higher than they would be with an infinite slot model using a sliding scale cost adder.
To see the effect I am talking about draw a downward sloping demand curve then draw an upward sloping supply curve that at a certain point goes vertical. Now move the demand curve so that is intersecting on the vertical part of the supply curve any further increases in supply will result simply an higher prices no additional production. In this case adding infinite slots even with an increasing cost factor could very well result in lower prices than the current situation.
Of course this assumes that the number of slots are all being fully and totally utilized everywhere and also to the extent that this is not true then this scenario is not a factor. However, in that case it also means that having a sliding cost scale to an infinite slot model will have little impact on final prices.
imo with they way the slot cost appears to be implemented major industrialist will now have to think real hard about how much supply they really wish to produce, as they may be sitting on supply for much longer periods of time due to the refining changes. right now if someone overproduces they just refine back to minerals and produce something else. Post patch I doubt massive oversupply will be dealt with so easily without a serious gut blow to their bottom line. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1197
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 22:20:00 -
[1830] - Quote
thread temporarily locked for some cleaning. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
ST Mahan
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 23:49:00 -
[1831] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The last few pages of this thread have been quite educational, I must say.
I think there are more than a few of us patiently waiting the next few blog posts before getting too vested in a final judgment and giving our stuffs away.
|
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1962
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 01:21:00 -
[1832] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote: Another thing completely overlooked is in starter systems it is nigh impossible to complete the S&I career mission involving manufactering in bonus isk period (or at all) due to bloat of jobs in those systems*, sure it will open slots now but at the density of use in those systems it would break a new player's wallet.
Quote:Expect costs ranging from 0% to 14% of the base item being produced for the most extreme case.
14% of 0 is still 0.
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 02:14:00 -
[1833] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:Flay Nardieu wrote: Another thing completely overlooked is in starter systems it is nigh impossible to complete the S&I career mission involving manufactering in bonus isk period (or at all) due to bloat of jobs in those systems*, sure it will open slots now but at the density of use in those systems it would break a new player's wallet.
Quote:Expect costs ranging from 0% to 14% of the base item being produced for the most extreme case. 14% of 0 is still 0.
Two of the missions do tell you to make legitimate things. One has you build ammo, the other has you build a frigate (a navitas in the gallente iirc, but you get one for free for during the exploration arc, so easy to bypass that one.) |
BackStreet Babe
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 07:37:00 -
[1834] - Quote
im easy with the changes but omfg the new UI looks like a 5 year old did a drawing and ccp made that the UI |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
324
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 08:00:00 -
[1835] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Gospadin wrote:What is your plan for T2 BPOs? T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners. And, I should think that the same argument that many players have against "reimbursement for the standings grind" should really apply here: The owners of T2 BPO's have enjoyed the benefits and profit for years. They have been long since fully compensated for their investment. However, to help reduce the sting, I don't mind suggesting to convert each T2 BPO to a number of limited run BPCs (say, 100 copies or so). Do people suggesting T2 BPOs be removed even realize what they're suggesting? It's not some kind of a privilege system that only old players are allowed to use. They're an item like any other which has been traded and changed hands many times since they were seeded to the game. Quit your whining and be happy there is an invention system. T2 BPOs aren't all that what people make them out to be. lol... this is always the same defence made by T2 BPO owners... over and over again. But, only a small handful of the T2 BPOs which were seeded by the lottery have ever been made publicly available for trade over the years; most of them remain a perk of the original owners and/or their friends. And, if the T2 BPO's "aren't all that what people make them out to be", then why always the objection to removing them from the game? Accept that you have already received full value for the use of T2 BPOs over the years, and accept that certain old features should be removed, when long past their time of productively contributing to the game. And, please stop your whining. You should be grateful that you have been able to milk this feature for so many years.
Lol, I never,owned a T2 BPO. Im just surprised people are complaining about their existence. Ive been doing T2 ptoduction via inventions for years and Ive never had an issue. Funny enough items without a T2 BPO are usually less ptofitable. I remember the days before invention, when a T2 pvp fit was insanely expensive, like a faction fit today. If you think theyre so great why dont you buy them? |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 08:12:00 -
[1836] - Quote
A slightly divergent to topic discussion but related item.
Since changes are going to be made to BP removing extra materials it might be a good idea to address BPOs that have unusually low Max runs.
One example would be the Nanite Repair Paste Blueprint it is classified as a charge however it max run limit is 5 and each run producing 10 units. I'm quite sure there are others, likely not more than 20 at most, but that one just happened to jump out at me.
Back to the main aspects of the discussion. A clarification of the POS "tax" since towers with arrays and outpost stations both fall under the same acronym (Player Owned Structure/Starbase) which technically e POCO is as well, obviously a POCO doesn't have research or manufactering lines so definately not related to question but pointed out the ambaguity of the acronym.
a. If a player owned station where to go into some sort of "overdrive" to handle higher density of jobs an added automatic surcharge makes sense especially since it would put more demands on line (much like overheating modules)
b. In the case of arrays and mobile labs I see no point in making capacity scalable other than using more arrays or labs
In either instance a "TAX" is not appropriate, in the particulars A is in player owned territory and any surcharge for exceeding capacity should be reflected in by the indication anything exceeding capacity would use more resources and require significantly more maintence and preferably an optional feature. In the instance of B capacity shouldn't be dynamic apart from adding more within the limits of what CPU and Powergrid is available to draw from. A tax applied to the production based on the demand density in a system could only be perceived as a subsidy to some 3rd (NPC) party.
Also in a more refined and detailed reiteration of my position of removing standing requirements from high-sec:
Towers and arrays in high-sec with the given productions they can do and the fact that they are only legal targets in the case of war the only time that a large risk of production loss is valid is in the production of batches or individual items taking a long run time and cost expensive resources to be cancelled and unanchored. Cancelling jobs and unanchoring labs is down right trial, especially when operations use a mitigating strategy of doing research a couple levels at a time or whatever can be accomplished in a 3 to 7day window.
Individuals and groups will only defend territory or assets if they have a vested interest to do so, case and point the change to POCO's corporations and alliances will and do defend those since they are static assets, the only other parallels I see are those who can not replace a tower in high-sec via standing or those in low who find a marginally decent moon to mine.
I shall attempt to refine and reiterate these positions until they are understood or are debunked as misconception on my part
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Ni-Ron Qua
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 11:05:00 -
[1837] - Quote
I make T2 drones in POS and T2 frigs in stations in HighSec from invented BPCs. The primary reason for me using stations production slots is the Base material mulitpler: 1.1 on advanced Small Ship Assembly Arrays. With 10% added materials/costs it becomes very difficult to make profit from building those T2 frigs, especially with ME= -4 T2 BPCs (I'm not using decryptors lab work on the process is the bottleneck and making full run copies would only make it worse)
Will this penalty for making T2 ships at advanced assembly arrays be dropped? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3366
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 12:08:00 -
[1838] - Quote
Update!
- All R.A.M. and R.Db. volume has been reduced from 4m3 to 0.04m3 to accommodate for their new required numbers.
- All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array.
- All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
- Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.
Example:
- BobTheClever installs Megathron Blueprint in Dodixie NPC station and use his corporation Starbase to research ME on it right now. Estimated delivery date is after the summer release. When he delivers the research ME job, the researched Megathorn blueprint will delivered back at the NPC station.
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1024
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 12:17:00 -
[1839] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Update!
- All R.A.M. and R.Db. volume has been reduced from 4m3 to 0.04m3 to accommodate for their new required numbers.
- All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array.
- All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
- Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.
Example:
- BobTheClever installs Megathron Blueprint in Dodixie NPC station and use his corporation Starbase to research ME on it right now. Estimated delivery date is after the summer release. When he delivers the research ME job, the researched Megathorn blueprint will delivered back at the NPC station.
Does the reduction in material cost apply to Advanced arrays which currently have a penalty? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3119
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 12:19:00 -
[1840] - Quote
5% material reduction.
Gah. That's a /major/ change. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 12:21:00 -
[1841] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:5% material reduction.
Gah. That's a /major/ change.
And this is why I decided to go ahead and build my POS after the last dev blog came out. :P |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
831
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 12:26:00 -
[1842] - Quote
So this has likely been asked earlier in this thread, but:
Are the moon POSes getting the infinite slot treatment? Will there be NPC costs to using them? Will the stats on the modules be adjusted for fitting? Will there be new bonuses if so? Am I going to need the same relative logistics or will there be a new element to this aspect?
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7046
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 12:53:00 -
[1843] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array. why are you discriminating against my titans Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
dark lollipop
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 12:53:00 -
[1844] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Update!
[list]
All R.A.M. and R.Db. volume has been reduced from 4m3 to 0.04m3 to accommodate for their new required numbers. All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array. All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory. Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.
Can you please make it so manufacturing/copying from T2 BPO can only be done from a POS?
Looks like the right time to start "removing" those from the game by letting them get blown up in POS. T2 BPO shouldnt be in game anymore, we have invention now. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7046
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 12:55:00 -
[1845] - Quote
also though thanks for the clarification on the in-build BPOS, that's very helpful for planning for summer Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
882
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 12:57:00 -
[1846] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:So this has likely been asked earlier in this thread, but: Are the moon POSes getting the infinite slot treatment? Will there be NPC costs to using them?
Yes, ALL facilities. YES, they will also be hit with the sliding "cost" based on usage. So, to keep your costs close to POS fuel level, you'll probably have to keep your manufacturing to a minimal level... NO details yet released on how the cost will work.
NEONOVUS wrote: Will the stats on the modules be adjusted for fitting? Will there be new bonuses if so? Am I going to need the same relative logistics or will there be a new element to this aspect?
NO details on any of this yet. Modules that used to get time bonus, will now get some discount factored into their fees. What the cost structure is going to look like is still completely unknown outside of CCP.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that CCP is going to attach the fee to the moon. I doubt you'll be able to run a bunch of jobs in one structure, drive up the price, then unanchor it, re-anchor it, and poof, back to 0 cost. Or, even unanchor and reanchor the tower. My guess is you'd have to move to a new moon.
Then again, it may end up being entire solar system. I crank out a bunch of jobs at my moon, and that jacks up the cost for all other POSes and the station. Hmmmm...
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
882
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 13:10:00 -
[1847] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.
When players started pointing out that BPOs can't be locked down at a POS, therefore, corporate theft, therefore a gazillion alt corps running super hardened high sec large POS, I figured you guys would think.... I guess that little extra ISK sink that would come from 2 BPOs a year getting destroyed in a POS bash just isn't worth the incredibly painful grind this very stupid change is going to put onto industrialists.....
I guess I was wrong. Moving forward with this change shows you really do enjoy torturing your industrialists with incredibly painful grind.... |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2781
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 13:12:00 -
[1848] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Flay Nardieu wrote: a. If a player owned station where to go into some sort of "overdrive" to handle higher density of jobs an added automatic surcharge makes sense especially since it would put more demands on line (much like overheating modules)
b. In the case of arrays and mobile labs I see no point in making capacity scalable other than using more arrays or labs
In either instance a "TAX" is not appropriate, in the particulars A is in player owned territory and any surcharge for exceeding capacity should be reflected in by the indication anything exceeding capacity would use more resources and require significantly more maintence and preferably an optional feature. In the instance of B capacity shouldn't be dynamic apart from adding more within the limits of what CPU and Powergrid is available to draw from. A tax applied to the production based on the demand density in a system could only be perceived as a subsidy to some 3rd (NPC) party.
So, is your concern the word "tax"? I think CCP is calling it "cost". The point, seems to me, is to create ISK drains. CCP has been removing ISK drains from the by making more things player buildable rather than only coming from NPCs. POS fuel, POS structures, nanite repair paste. They need to bring back ISK drains. It seems they are choosing to do it by having it imbedded into the cost of all player produced items.
The ultimate question, which of course will be met with complete silence as a response, is why the fame needs this ISK sink anyway. The latest economic report states clearly that the Eve economy is in a deflationary state.
But now, with these huge costs being added in, we will be faced with a double whammy of less ISK to buy stuff, coupled with a price spike, at least until the cartels get their industrial warfare engine cranked up to price all the high sec manufacturers out of the game. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 13:29:00 -
[1849] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Update!
- All R.A.M. and R.Db. volume has been reduced from 4m3 to 0.04m3 to accommodate for their new required numbers.
- All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array.
- All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
- Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.
Example:
- BobTheClever installs Megathron Blueprint in Dodixie NPC station and use his corporation Starbase to research ME on it right now. Estimated delivery date is after the summer release. When he delivers the research ME job, the researched Megathorn blueprint will delivered back at the NPC station.
R.A.M & R.Db's point definately makes sense since more will be consumed instead of them 'decaying' Second and 3rd points - boosts to player structures nice, still waiting on the price for it
Final bulleted point and example: Good to know that they know changing remote jobs is gonna screw things... Decentralizing BP location when adding feature to run from containers is akin to look we fixed things but now we are gonna break it in different manner. I have yet to see how forcing BPs into a starbase offers anything genuinely in line with all 3 let alone 2 of the benchmarks stated for this expansion
Quote: We thus needed a strong direction on how to proceed and, as such, we came up with the following set of principles:
Any industry feature must have an actual gameplay attached to it in order to exist Any industry feature must be balanced around our risk versus reward philosophy Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base
(From the announcement, they where numbered 1-3 but didn't translate in copy and paste)
I've already debunked the moving BPs to starbase premise of the #2 principle in at least two of my past posts, myself losing a print due to this change is rather unlikely it is a more of an annoyance issue and fixing something that wasn't really broke.
I'll even throw out my own example: Willie Coyote Corp has 2+ starbases in a system and 1 office. WCC does different things at different starbases say 1 is research the other is production. Under current system there is no issues, the same BPO can transition from research to manufactor instantly assuming of course the array was loaded with mats. Different permissions can be used for the members who run the jobs and those who move the materials ie finished product or BPC's Post expansion as stated. WCC now will either have someone move the BP's for S&I guys or give them the permissions to do so themselves.
I see the risk all too well member theft due to undermining corporate roles and controls, Reward? More corporate drama and theft. Hey guys if that is what you are promoting might as well say so up front.
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 13:35:00 -
[1850] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Update!
- All R.A.M. and R.Db. volume has been reduced from 4m3 to 0.04m3 to accommodate for their new required numbers.
- All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array.
- All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
- Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.
Example:
- BobTheClever installs Megathron Blueprint in Dodixie NPC station and use his corporation Starbase to research ME on it right now. Estimated delivery date is after the summer release. When he delivers the research ME job, the researched Megathorn blueprint will delivered back at the NPC station.
Ok. I can understand the RAM change, those things could get huge in a hurry with the intended changes.
The assembly array change is pretty meh for risking BPO's where they can't be locked down. The lab change is almost insulting barring significant changes to the base research and copy times on BPO's. |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
882
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 13:36:00 -
[1851] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:The ultimate question, which of course will be met with complete silence as a response, is why the fame needs this ISK sink anyway. The latest economic report states clearly that the Eve economy is in a deflationary state.
But now, with these huge costs being added in, we will be faced with a double whammy of less ISK to buy stuff, coupled with a price spike, at least until the cartels get their industrial warfare engine cranked up to price all the high sec manufacturers out of the game.
I hear your concern. One of the things people tend to fail to understand about inflation is that it is not a factor of TOTAL MONEY/TOTAL GOODS. It is, in fact, a factor of only the money that is actively trying to buy goods and services.
In the USA now, something like 80% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the population. Those 10% of the population are not actively trying to spend those trillions of dollars. They only want to loan it out, so they can earn interest on the debt and get even richer. This concentration of money into the hand of the fw is exactly why the Federal Reserve has been able to buy bonds, putting money into the hands of people, without creating inflation. The people into whose hands they are putting money, simply do not spend the money, and instead look to loan it back out.
So, I beleive the same is happening in EVE. Money flows in through bounties, NPC buy orders of wormhole blue loot, etc. It gets spent and ends up in the hands of other players, and then other players and other players.... and eventually ends up in teh wallets of a few very rich players, coalitions, alliances.
So, with a few individuals growing ever richer, what can be done?
This "tax on everyone" in the form of slot fees is not, in my opinion, going to address the problem. Like sales tax (VAT) in the real world, it just takes money from people that spend it, NOT the people that do not spend it.
Real world, the way we've been able to deal with money hoarding by the few is with a very steep income tax with large deductions for actual spending. That works. That gets the money out of the hands of the very few, insanely rich, and back flowing through the economy.
In EVE, I a not sure how we could implement that, other than some sort of "wallet tax". 1% per month tax on your ISK balance of your personal and corporate wallets. Combine that with this slot fee to soak up the extra fee, and POOF, that is how you eliminate ISK expansion.
Honestly, I've learned a TON about real world economics from comparing and contrasting it to EVE's economy. |
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 13:47:00 -
[1852] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
The issue regarding how to migrate blueprints using starbase when the expansion hits has been noted. We'll update this thread when we have more information about this.
That sounds soul-crushingly like "Oh snap! We hadn't even thought about that!" |
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 13:57:00 -
[1853] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Max Kolonko wrote:
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.
This. This is my primary concern with this update. This is primarily how I see it affecting me personally. I'm having a truly hard time imagining A) that NPC taxes are going to be so exhorbitant as to make 300-500M in fuel costs more cost effective or B) the efficiency being so astoundingly much greater as to justify the expense of dropping a pos as opposed to just paying even the 14%. I truly hope you guys are treading carefully here, and that we'll see the appropriate devlog ASAP. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
390
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 14:00:00 -
[1854] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Update!
- All R.A.M. and R.Db. volume has been reduced from 4m3 to 0.04m3 to accommodate for their new required numbers.
- All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array.
- All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
- Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.
Example:
- BobTheClever installs Megathron Blueprint in Dodixie NPC station and use his corporation Starbase to research ME on it right now. Estimated delivery date is after the summer release. When he delivers the research ME job, the researched Megathorn blueprint will delivered back at the NPC station.
Hmmm 5% reduction in production cost - sounds great, but this will only really affect large quantities of materials needed (i.e if something needs 1 peice of something it will not reduce the cost, so the real reduction is less.
For me the change is nerf, as T3 production will not benefit from it at all (50k is reduction on a 130 mil t3) and i will have the tax for using slots. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 14:12:00 -
[1855] - Quote
TLDR: Surely this isn't mainly about ISK sinks, it's about highsec and nullsec.
Above posts are spot-on...we don't have inflation because the velocity of the money supply is low (Tarawa's point) and because the total volume of transactions involving goods is high and growing (output growth). This is kiddie monetarism stuff.
An even better analysis of the EVE economy would see ISK as just another resource (albeit with some special properties) with a "bucket" model of sink and fountain. Other resources have buckets, too, though--minerals have fountains (loot, mining) and sinks (module destruction) and hoarders; salvage has fountains (exploration, PvE salvaging) and sinks (rig destruction); LP items have fountains (missions and incursions etc.) and sinks (module, implant destruction)...it goes on. We regularly trade resources between the buckets, too (ISK for minerals; sell minerals for ISK to buy rigs; etc.).
The challenge for CCP is to do interbucket balance and intrabucket balance.
Interbucket balance is what we're talking about when we talk about ISK inflation. But you could also talk about salvage prices coming down post-exploration as an aspect of interbucket balance. The challenge with interbucket balance is for CCP to make sure products are cheap enough for everybody to get some if they want it. Hence turning on the salvage fountain -> less valuable with respect to other buckets, including ISK -> cheaper for everybody else to use rigs. Turn on the moon goo fountain -> less valuable with respect to other buckets, especially because of an ideal diffusion of control -> cheaper for everybody else to use T2 items.
Intrabucket balance involves making sure that the fountains and sinks inside a bucket don't destroy each other. You could criticize the exploration sites and now reprocessing changes as possibly changing the balance of salvage fountains in a way that destroys one fountain and hence one activity (salvage/loot in missions). Same deal for minerals (drone poop too much minerals -> nerf and help mining -> now help mining more by nerfing normal PvE loot drops). You could also see CCP needing to nerf incursions to give balance to other ISK fountains like L4 missions and null ratting.
Like several people have implied, we're not having ISK price inflation; in other words, the contents of the ISK bucket are not getting that especially less valuable than other buckets right now. But we know that the bucket is getting heavier every day. That must mean that a) part of that bucket isn't in play, e.g. hoarding is acting as a kind of temporary ISK sink (Tarawa's point), and b) the other buckets are also getting heavier, e.g. more people mining in safe renter systems, etc.
The main worry with a "heavy" bucket is thus that some of the resources in the bucket could come out of hoarding and into play to produce large shocks; imagine if some corporation with twenty trillion ISK suddenly put that in play in a minor trade hub or on a minor resource in Jita. Tarawa points out that this new ISK sink would probably NOT solve the heavy bucket problem because it would be a consumption tax, not an asset or property tax. So this main worry is hopefully not the reason CCP is making this change.
Presumably CCP knows this and models the economy this way. So while the ISK sink benefits might be on a bullet point list somewhere, the real reason for the change is the nullsec vs. highsec issue. That's why many of the discussions of this issue involve nullsec vs. highsec (see Jester's Trek, Fiddler's Edge, Seraph, anybody...). CCP wants to make it at least plausible to make stuff in nullsec. Just like with reprocessing--if everybody has perfect refine already, how do you give a bonus?--CCP wanted to introduce a new cost that they could then alleviate as a bonus for nullsec to balance things out. We don't have the numbers yet to know how much that will act as a nerf on highsec. But at the end of the day, that is what the changes are mainly about. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2782
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 14:13:00 -
[1856] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:The ultimate question, which of course will be met with complete silence as a response, is why the fame needs this ISK sink anyway. The latest economic report states clearly that the Eve economy is in a deflationary state.
But now, with these huge costs being added in, we will be faced with a double whammy of less ISK to buy stuff, coupled with a price spike, at least until the cartels get their industrial warfare engine cranked up to price all the high sec manufacturers out of the game. I hear your concern. One of the things people tend to fail to understand about inflation is that it is not a factor of TOTAL MONEY/TOTAL GOODS. It is, in fact, a factor of only the money that is actively trying to buy goods and services. In the USA now, something like 80% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the population. Those 10% of the population are not actively trying to spend those trillions of dollars. They only want to loan it out, so they can earn interest on the debt and get even richer. This concentration of money into the hand of the fw is exactly why the Federal Reserve has been able to buy bonds, putting money into the hands of people, without creating inflation. The people into whose hands they are putting money, simply do not spend the money, and instead look to loan it back out. So, I beleive the same is happening in EVE. Money flows in through bounties, NPC buy orders of wormhole blue loot, etc. It gets spent and ends up in the hands of other players, and then other players and other players.... and eventually ends up in teh wallets of a few very rich players, coalitions, alliances. So, with a few individuals growing ever richer, what can be done? This "tax on everyone" in the form of slot fees is not, in my opinion, going to address the problem. Like sales tax (VAT) in the real world, it just takes money from people that spend it, NOT the people that do not spend it. Real world, the way we've been able to deal with money hoarding by the few is with a very steep income tax with large deductions for actual spending. That works. That gets the money out of the hands of the very few, insanely rich, and back flowing through the economy. In EVE, I a not sure how we could implement that, other than some sort of "wallet tax". 1% per month tax on your ISK balance of your personal and corporate wallets. Combine that with this slot fee to soak up the extra fee, and POOF, that is how you eliminate ISK expansion. Honestly, I've learned a TON about real world economics from comparing and contrasting it to EVE's economy.
Yes, a flat tax hurts only the ones at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and this is what we are dealing with here. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Plus, the concept that somehow barriers to entry to being an industrialist will be lowered with these changes is just plain wrong. Sure, having more space opened up for POS's is going to allow more people to dabble in industry. But the upfront costs of building a POS are staying the same, if not going higher. And if the null sec cartel propagandists are to be believed, there was never a problem getting high sec mfg slots. But now, everyone who operates with a few jumps of a trade hub is getting hammered with huge fee increases.
I ran an order last day for 5 run BPC from an LP store. The cost for the 39 minute job was 1219 ISK. Based on the new regime, at the 14% rate, which the system I was in will surely get hit with, the same 39 minute job will cost 91.7 million ISK, based in the in-game valuation tool of the final product's sell price. That was an increase of over 75,000 times.
To put that in perspective, that works out to 141 million ISK per hour, per NPC mfg slot. It costs 108 million in fuel a month at present prices to run a small POS which can easily handle a couple assembly arrays. So yeah, if you can afford the upfront costs of a POS, PLUS find an open slot in the stampede (I already stated that the goons and their RvB slaves will be deadzoning entire systems by putting up small unfueled POS's, simply by using an army of alt corps), plus you can handle the risk of catastrophic BPO corp theft, a POS will be much less onerous.
But that is NOT lowering the barrier to entry, especially when the cartels are being handed an system that encourages full-on predatory pricing to crush high sec industry. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 14:20:00 -
[1857] - Quote
@LHA Tarawa
It is specifically stated as a taxes
Quote: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. (section of OP)
As it has been pointed out to me every time I've made a real world comparison "Eve is not Real Life" so I have instead adopted a lore/common sense approuch to my arguements.
Lore and common sense wise: NPC stations realistically could scale their S&I with the increased "burden" of course they could charge a premium to offset their "burden" same NPC stations could reasonably be in an agreement on how much the scaling surcharge would be.
Capsuleers however are not, nor should be under an universal mandate of equity or even citizens of any given empire Operating costs in fuel and other resources - supported by Lore Requiring charters for high-sec operation (and having standings) - supported by Lore and logical POCO in high-sec with built in tax then corp assigned tax - supported by Lore in that empire space is controlled so to permit the continued existence of that type of orbital platform they can demand compensation
There are already Lore associated and logical isk sinks in the game every order buy or sell has fees and or taxes, services provided only or in the majority by NPC groups and stations.
And referencing back to quoted line from the original post, cost is never zero to begin with there are always costs and is always under some degree of control even so far as to limit production or suspend/cancel it in entirety. Some of the economic hyperboley posted by various people would have private business owners in coughing fits from laughing so hard. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
419
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 14:25:00 -
[1858] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Yes, a flat tax hurts only the ones at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and this is what we are dealing with here. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Plus, the concept that somehow barriers to entry to being an industrialist will be lowered with these changes is just plain wrong. Sure, having more space opened up for POS's is going to allow more people to dabble in industry. But the upfront costs of building a POS are staying the same, if not going higher. And if the null sec cartel propagandists are to be believed, there was never a problem getting high sec mfg slots. But now, everyone who operates with a few jumps of a trade hub is getting hammered with huge fee increases.
I ran an order last day for 5 run BPC from an LP store. The cost for the 39 minute job was 1219 ISK. Based on the new regime, at the 14% rate, which the system I was in will surely get hit with, the same 39 minute job will cost 91.7 million ISK, based in the in-game valuation tool of the final product's sell price. That was an increase of over 75,000 times.
To put that in perspective, that works out to 141 million ISK per hour, per NPC mfg slot. It costs 108 million in fuel a month at present prices to run a small POS which can easily handle a couple assembly arrays. So yeah, if you can afford the upfront costs of a POS, PLUS find an open slot in the stampede (I already stated that the goons and their RvB slaves will be deadzoning entire systems by putting up small unfueled POS's, simply by using an army of alt corps), plus you can handle the risk of catastrophic BPO corp theft, a POS will be much less onerous.
But that is NOT lowering the barrier to entry, especially when the cartels are being handed an system that encourages full-on predatory pricing to crush high sec industry.
This vignette assumes that the industrialist in question is, for some reason, unwilling to leave the trade hub. If you spread out, you will find less congested services, suffer fewer fees, and increase your margin for your diligence. This is kind of the whole point of the change.
Also, regarding your POS spam scenario, have you stopped to consider how unfeasible that would be, even for us? 13400 moons are opening up in highsec. To tower them all with small towers at 65m per tower would cost 871 billion isk. Additionally, the supply available on the market or that can be manufactured with PI goods is maybe 1/20 of what we'd need, if that. (Mental math based on eyeballing eve-central before I head off for work, may be wrong.) We can extract a significantly better ratio of ISK to suffering by, say, burning Jita. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 14:28:00 -
[1859] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Yes, a flat tax hurts only the ones at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and this is what we are dealing with here. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Plus, the concept that somehow barriers to entry to being an industrialist will be lowered with these changes is just plain wrong. Sure, having more space opened up for POS's is going to allow more people to dabble in industry. But the upfront costs of building a POS are staying the same, if not going higher. And if the null sec cartel propagandists are to be believed, there was never a problem getting high sec mfg slots. But now, everyone who operates with a few jumps of a trade hub is getting hammered with huge fee increases.
I ran an order last day for 5 run BPC from an LP store. The cost for the 39 minute job was 1219 ISK. Based on the new regime, at the 14% rate, which the system I was in will surely get hit with, the same 39 minute job will cost 91.7 million ISK, based in the in-game valuation tool of the final product's sell price. That was an increase of over 75,000 times.
To put that in perspective, that works out to 141 million ISK per hour, per NPC mfg slot. It costs 108 million in fuel a month at present prices to run a small POS which can easily handle a couple assembly arrays. So yeah, if you can afford the upfront costs of a POS, PLUS find an open slot in the stampede (I already stated that the goons and their RvB slaves will be deadzoning entire systems by putting up small unfueled POS's, simply by using an army of alt corps), plus you can handle the risk of catastrophic BPO corp theft, a POS will be much less onerous.
But that is NOT lowering the barrier to entry, especially when the cartels are being handed an system that encourages full-on predatory pricing to crush high sec industry.
This vignette assumes that the industrialist in question is, for some reason, unwilling to leave the trade hub. If you spread out, you will find less congested services, suffer fewer fees, and increase your margin for your diligence. This is kind of the whole point of the change. Also, regarding your POS spam scenario, have you stopped to consider how unfeasible that would be, even for us? 13400 moons are opening up in highsec. To tower them all with small towers at 65m per tower would cost 871 billion isk. Additionally, the supply available on the market or that can be manufactured with PI goods is maybe 1/20 of what we'd need, if that. (Mental math based on eyeballing eve-central before I head off for work, may be wrong.) We can extract a significantly better ratio of ISK to suffering by, say, burning Jita.
Just depends on how quickly the formula scales up, right? If it only takes ten items to get to max or if POSs contribute to systemwide congestion, things get much hairier for today's solo indy alt corp people. We just need to see numbers to see whether this is nullsec-highsec balance or a highsec nerf. |
Destiven Mare
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 14:44:00 -
[1860] - Quote
A significant number of subscribers are clamoring for a dev blog in this series and instead CCP issues a fluff piece on one of their own??!!
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/developer-spotlight-goliath/
I have zero issue with Goliath; I am curious to know whether this "dev blog" is a calculated move on CCP's part to further inflame industrialists or just more evidence of an utterly and absurdly inept PR department inside CCP. |
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
642
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 14:58:00 -
[1861] - Quote
I have another question for CCP.
Will the anchoring of POSes in 0.8-1.0 systems extend to other anchorables as well, or is it just for POSes and their associated modules? GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
420
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:05:00 -
[1862] - Quote
Korthan Doshu wrote: Just depends on how quickly the formula scales up, right? If it only takes ten items to get to max or if POSs contribute to systemwide congestion, things get much hairier for today's solo indy alt corp people. We just need to see numbers to see whether this is nullsec-highsec balance or a highsec nerf.
Yeah, I don't know the formula so it's hard to say how available 0% congestion manufacturing stations will be. Frankly, that's not the RAM type I'd be worried about -- it's copying that is probably gonna be the pisser. Manufacturing slots are just not that rare; I regularly run jobs 1-2j from Jita once a month or less, and I never have problems finding open slots today. Granted, this is not the BEST comparison, but it speaks to the prevalence of manufacturing facilities and its general demand. With the removal of remote copying at a POS, copy stations and offices are gonna be in high demand in highsec. I expect congestion to creep up pretty quick on those.
One thing's for sure though -- people with balls of steel who are willing to toss expensive BPOs into a POS to copy or do materials research are gonna get paid. Well, until someone finds their pos, I guess. Risk vs reward is a wonderful thing. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
420
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:07:00 -
[1863] - Quote
Destiven Mare wrote:A significant number of subscribers are clamoring for a dev blog in this series and instead CCP issues a fluff piece on one of their own??!! http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/developer-spotlight-goliath/I have zero issue with Goliath; I am curious to know whether this "dev blog" is a calculated move on CCP's part to further inflame industrialists or just more evidence of an utterly and absurdly inept PR department inside CCP. CCP Eterne is a "Community Representative and Live Events Author for EVE Online." I kinda doubt he (she?) has much of a hand in the industry changes. Devblogs aren't some sort of scarce resource that require the entire output of the company to pen -- they can have their non-developer and non-designer folks put out devblogs without somehow choking off the potential for others.
That being said, I feel your weariness. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:14:00 -
[1864] - Quote
Querns wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote: Just depends on how quickly the formula scales up, right? If it only takes ten items to get to max or if POSs contribute to systemwide congestion, things get much hairier for today's solo indy alt corp people. We just need to see numbers to see whether this is nullsec-highsec balance or a highsec nerf.
Yeah, I don't know the formula so it's hard to say how available 0% congestion manufacturing stations will be. Frankly, that's not the RAM type I'd be worried about -- it's copying that is probably gonna be the pisser. Manufacturing slots are just not that rare; I regularly run jobs 1-2j from Jita once a month or less, and I never have problems finding open slots today. Granted, this is not the BEST comparison, but it speaks to the prevalence of manufacturing facilities and its general demand. With the removal of remote copying at a POS, copy stations and offices are gonna be in high demand in highsec. I expect congestion to creep up pretty quick on those. One thing's for sure though -- people with balls of steel who are willing to toss expensive BPOs into a POS to copy or do materials research are gonna get paid. Well, until someone finds their pos, I guess. Risk vs reward is a wonderful thing.
Yeah, fair enough on the point that copying will be important. But all that is still just to say that whether highsec is completely nerfed or just balanced depends on the numbers for the congestion formula. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2785
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:17:00 -
[1865] - Quote
Korthan Doshu wrote:Querns wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Yes, a flat tax hurts only the ones at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and this is what we are dealing with here. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Plus, the concept that somehow barriers to entry to being an industrialist will be lowered with these changes is just plain wrong. Sure, having more space opened up for POS's is going to allow more people to dabble in industry. But the upfront costs of building a POS are staying the same, if not going higher. And if the null sec cartel propagandists are to be believed, there was never a problem getting high sec mfg slots. But now, everyone who operates with a few jumps of a trade hub is getting hammered with huge fee increases.
I ran an order last day for 5 run BPC from an LP store. The cost for the 39 minute job was 1219 ISK. Based on the new regime, at the 14% rate, which the system I was in will surely get hit with, the same 39 minute job will cost 91.7 million ISK, based in the in-game valuation tool of the final product's sell price. That was an increase of over 75,000 times.
To put that in perspective, that works out to 141 million ISK per hour, per NPC mfg slot. It costs 108 million in fuel a month at present prices to run a small POS which can easily handle a couple assembly arrays. So yeah, if you can afford the upfront costs of a POS, PLUS find an open slot in the stampede (I already stated that the goons and their RvB slaves will be deadzoning entire systems by putting up small unfueled POS's, simply by using an army of alt corps), plus you can handle the risk of catastrophic BPO corp theft, a POS will be much less onerous.
But that is NOT lowering the barrier to entry, especially when the cartels are being handed an system that encourages full-on predatory pricing to crush high sec industry.
This vignette assumes that the industrialist in question is, for some reason, unwilling to leave the trade hub. If you spread out, you will find less congested services, suffer fewer fees, and increase your margin for your diligence. This is kind of the whole point of the change. Also, regarding your POS spam scenario, have you stopped to consider how unfeasible that would be, even for us? 13400 moons are opening up in highsec. To tower them all with small towers at 65m per tower would cost 871 billion isk. Additionally, the supply available on the market or that can be manufactured with PI goods is maybe 1/20 of what we'd need, if that. (Mental math based on eyeballing eve-central before I head off for work, may be wrong.) We can extract a significantly better ratio of ISK to suffering by, say, burning Jita. Just depends on how quickly the formula scales up, right? If it only takes ten items to get to max or if POSs contribute to systemwide congestion, things get much hairier for today's solo indy alt corp people. We just need to see numbers to see whether this is nullsec-highsec balance or a highsec nerf.
Given my costing scenario, let's assume I move all my manufacturing the furthest reaches of high sec. (Because my time is infinite and has no value). Let's further assume that I am paying, oh, I dunno, 3% in this hinterland. I am still faced with over a 15,000 fold increase on my costs, or around 30 million ISK / hour / NPC mfg slot.
Let's further examine someone who has built say, T1 Domi's at an NPC station. Now, the option of them moving far away to avoid high slot costs is impossible, because moving packaged Domi's in a freighter long distance is just a mess. So let's say this hypothetical Domi builder has a BPO PE of 10 and manufactures at a NPC slot. At current prices in Amarr, a Domi has an average of buy/sell of around 180 million, so will use that as the valuation. Because hauling is so dangerous and such a huge pain, the builder is far enough away to incur a 10% tax. It takes about 3 hours, 15 min to build the Domi at the station. He is now looking at a slot cost of 5.5 million / hour / slot to build at the station. If he runs 10 slots , that is 55 million / hour.
So let's say he moves even further out, and incurs ONLY a 5% tax. He is now looking at around 2.8 million / hour / NPC mfg slot , to run a single char in battleship manufacturing. If he runs 24 hours a day, with say 1 char = 10 slots, which is on the low end of a manufacturing setup, he is faced with taxes of 672 million ISK / day.
Let me break that down again: One char 10 manufacturing slots on that char, running 24 hours/day, which is not abnormal 10 slots * 24 hours = 240 slot hours / day Uses NPC station NPC station slot tax is 5% Makes Domi's, which have a valuation of 180 million Manufacturing time is 3.25 hours per ship. 180 million * 5% = 9 million tax / 3.25 hours = 2.8 million tax / hour / slot 240 slot hours * 2.8 million tax / hour / slot = 672 million in taxes / day
Manufacturing at an NPC station now is utterly impossible to be profitable.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7048
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:24:00 -
[1866] - Quote
you should face an increase, it is absurd that costs used to be amounts of isk so small they are rounding errors even to newbies
like that's a normal and expected part of this rebalance: slot fees should matter. it'll just get passed onto the consumer. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2785
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:39:00 -
[1867] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:you should face an increase, it is absurd that costs used to be amounts of isk so small they are rounding errors even to newbies
like that's a normal and expected part of this rebalance: slot fees should matter. it'll just get passed onto the consumer.
Right, sure. Spoken by the guy who gets an 18% discount on his mineral costs, plus has been told by the dev's that null sec station slots costs will be significantly below high sec station slot costs. Who will be able to price out any high sec competition in any market you choose. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:43:00 -
[1868] - Quote
Big assumptions on the tax rate Dinsdale, big assumptions. We need to see numbers.
EDIT: I mean, it might turn out to be a huge nerf. But it's just too early to know with any certainty (certainly not with the kind of confidence that has led Mord Fiddler to shut down, for example). |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7048
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:44:00 -
[1869] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Right, sure. Spoken by the guy who gets an 18% discount on his mineral costs, plus has been told by the dev's that null sec station slots costs will be significantly below high sec station slot costs. Who will be able to price out any high sec competition in any market you choose. i got told whatnow?
i mean, i assume that an upgraded amarr station (which can be upgraded to 230 slots) should ramp up much slower to 14% than a highsec 50 slot station because anything else would be ridiculous, but i'm still waiting on the actual details and i may be dissapointed.
however given that it starts at zero percent, and knowing how vast highsec is and that virtually every system has a station, I'm pretty sure there's going to be plenty of low-cost slots in highsec - just not right next to jita Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:46:00 -
[1870] - Quote
Commander Venture wrote:Lors Dornick wrote:This will be fun.
Thank you CCP (and possibly CSM).
The age of Aquarius is over, this is the age of Vulcan ;)
Actually if I had to name this expansion, it'd be after Vulcanus, smith of the ancient Roman gods. Like industry in EVE, he was the unwanted child that still got the job done, the Tyrion Lannister of the Roman pantheon.
A better name: EVE CONTRACTION
- Obsoleting of POS research labs (mobile labs) - Obsoleting of Faction Standings - Obsoleting of Drone Interfacing V skill - T2 Drone nerfs
Have we heard about anything actually being ADDED yet? Or just many of the deeper and long term mechanics (longer training time skills, longer term achievements like Faction Standings) being made more short term / less worth while? |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7048
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:47:00 -
[1871] - Quote
wait you're still trying to cover your hilarious mistake of complaining ccp yitterbum had insider info aren't you Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2785
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:49:00 -
[1872] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Right, sure. Spoken by the guy who gets an 18% discount on his mineral costs, plus has been told by the dev's that null sec station slots costs will be significantly below high sec station slot costs. Who will be able to price out any high sec competition in any market you choose. i got told whatnow? i mean, i assume that an upgraded amarr station (which can be upgraded to 230 slots) should ramp up much slower to 14% than a highsec 50 slot station because anything else would be ridiculous, but i'm still waiting on the actual details and i may be dissapointed. however given that it starts at zero percent, and knowing how vast highsec is and that virtually every system has a station, I'm pretty sure there's going to be plenty of low-cost slots in highsec - just not right next to jita
Please....the dev's have made it explicitly clear that null sec stations and POS's will enjoy far lower mfg costs that high sec because of this ridiculous idea that sov null sec has more inherent risk than high sec.
If CCP came out and said, "yeah, NPC null and wh space are going to have a minor edge over high sec in mfg, with low sec somewhere in between, because NPC null sec and wh space is the wild west", maybe I could buy into this whole disaster that coming down the road.
But that is not the case.
And with that, I am off to do real work, and try to lower my blood pressure. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7048
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:49:00 -
[1873] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote: A better name: EVE CONTRACTION
- Obsoleting of POS research labs (mobile labs) - Obsoleting of Faction Standings - Obsoleting of Drone Interfacing V skill - T2 Drone nerfs
Have we heard about anything actually being ADDED yet? Or just many of the deeper and long term mechanics (longer training time skills, longer term achievements like Faction Standings) being made more short term / less worth while?
diV isn't obsolete you scrublord, and "longer training time skills" got a massive thing with the new need to actually train refining skills Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
884
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:51:00 -
[1874] - Quote
Korthan Doshu wrote:TLDR: Surely this isn't mainly about ISK sinks, it's about highsec and nullsec. CUT: AWESOME, Amazing, cogent, econmoic analysis.... so rare to see such a long post, from someone that clearly "gets it". Thanks.
Okay, perhaps it is a high/null re-balance. I had seen (and agreed with) the idea of drastically reducing high sec station slots and upping the null outpost slots.
I could see where they do NOT want to cut high sec slots. They do nt want the VERY significant portion of the player base that lives in high sec, and is NEVER going to move out, to log in, try to play, find nothing to do.... then drop their subscriptions.
This is why high sec belts are never going to go away (or even be nerfed back to teh point they were all mined out). Lack of high sec resources does NOT push people to null, it pushes them out of the game.
So, much higher slot prices would ensure that they are not "totally blocked", just lower profit.
However, if it were ONLY about re-balance, then why apply the cost structure to null at all? 14% cost added to high sec, 0% to null. Then the cost/risk of shipping goods into high sec would be sure to be rewarded with higher profit margins. Some things are easy enough to move to justify the profit, while other items (ammo) are too big and cheap (ammo), that people would not build in null and move it in.
What I do think you are definitely onto is that there is a shift in CCP thinking on the way of implimenting risk v. reward. Previous attempts focused on buffing null. Those were largely disasters as it exploded isk creation and concentration. If I could suddenly make twice as much ISK ratting null, the bosses with the titans doubled my rent. My profits didn't really change that much, but the wallets of the bosses got way fatter, very quickly.
So, now they are looking for ways to "rebalance" that do nto involve buffing null, but rather nerfing high.... which is what has the high sec player base (a huge portion of CCP's income) so concerned.
Perhaps CCP could finally do something about the #1 bat to teh head of null profitability... the cloaky camper.
What good is it that I can make 2x the isk/hr in null, if I spend over half my time sitting in station because there is NOTHING that can be done about a cloaky camper. Give us something, anything, that makes it possible to hunt down and kill a claoky camper! Poof, null sec profitability skyrockets!!! |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:56:00 -
[1875] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Weaselior wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Right, sure. Spoken by the guy who gets an 18% discount on his mineral costs, plus has been told by the dev's that null sec station slots costs will be significantly below high sec station slot costs. Who will be able to price out any high sec competition in any market you choose. i got told whatnow? i mean, i assume that an upgraded amarr station (which can be upgraded to 230 slots) should ramp up much slower to 14% than a highsec 50 slot station because anything else would be ridiculous, but i'm still waiting on the actual details and i may be dissapointed. however given that it starts at zero percent, and knowing how vast highsec is and that virtually every system has a station, I'm pretty sure there's going to be plenty of low-cost slots in highsec - just not right next to jita Please....the dev's have made it explicitly clear that null sec stations and POS's will enjoy far lower mfg costs that high sec because of this ridiculous idea that sov null sec has more inherent risk than high sec. If CCP came out and said, "yeah, NPC null and wh space are going to have a minor edge over high sec in mfg, with low sec somewhere in between, because NPC null sec and wh space is the wild west", maybe I could buy into this whole disaster that coming down the road. But that is not the case. And with that, I am off to do real work, and try to lower my blood pressure.
So, I just ran some numbers to see what a round trip between Jita and VFK costs. It's about 45 million ISK (JF, level 4 on all skills, rounded up). Now, they might not actually do the manufacturing in VFK itself. But it's a starting point. Now also assuming that they can put only a billion ISK in the JF because of the slowboating from jump-in to Jita proper. That means for a round trip of one billion ISK they're paying 45 million or 4.5%. Assuming you can get down to 5% slot fees in HS pretty easily after the changes, I really don't expect the manufacturers of deep sov immediately killing us HSers. But that's if we're doing "pull numbers out of our butts and make wild assumptions" games. |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:03:00 -
[1876] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:TLDR: Surely this isn't mainly about ISK sinks, it's about highsec and nullsec. CUT: AWESOME, Amazing, cogent, econmoic analysis.... so rare to see such a long post, from someone that clearly "gets it". Thanks.
Okay, perhaps it is a high/null re-balance. I had seen (and agreed with) the idea of drastically reducing high sec station slots and upping the null outpost slots. I could see where they do NOT want to cut high sec slots. They do nt want the VERY significant portion of the player base that lives in high sec, and is NEVER going to move out, to log in, try to play, find nothing to do.... then drop their subscriptions. This is why high sec belts are never going to go away (or even be nerfed back to teh point they were all mined out). Lack of high sec resources does NOT push people to null, it pushes them out of the game. So, much higher slot prices would ensure that they are not "totally blocked", just lower profit. However, if it were ONLY about re-balance, then why apply the cost structure to null at all? 14% cost added to high sec, 0% to null. Then the cost/risk of shipping goods into high sec would be sure to be rewarded with higher profit margins. Some things are easy enough to move to justify the profit, while other items (ammo) are too big and cheap (ammo), that people would not build in null and move it in. What I do think you are definitely onto is that there is a shift in CCP thinking on the way of implimenting risk v. reward. Previous attempts focused on buffing null. Those were largely disasters as it exploded isk creation and concentration. If I could suddenly make twice as much ISK ratting null, the bosses with the titans doubled my rent. My profits didn't really change that much, but the wallets of the bosses got way fatter, very quickly. So, now they are looking for ways to "rebalance" that do nto involve buffing null, but rather nerfing high.... which is what has the high sec player base (a huge portion of CCP's income) so concerned. Perhaps CCP could finally do something about the #1 bat to teh head of null profitability... the cloaky camper. What good is it that I can make 2x the isk/hr in null, if I spend over half my time sitting in station because there is NOTHING that can be done about a cloaky camper. Give us something, anything, that makes it possible to hunt down and kill a claoky camper! Poof, null sec profitability skyrockets!!!
I wouldn't say it's only about the highsec-nullsec balance, but I think that's the biggest factor here. I think the main reason to export the cost scaling to nullsec would be that 1) slots are a big problem for null and 2) without slots OR scaling costs, null manufacturers could just do everything in null hubs. I think they want to put the null industrialists on an even playing field with high, not make it easy for the goons to turn VFK into an industrialist utopia. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:05:00 -
[1877] - Quote
I pose the question to those it would affect:
Do player/ organizations feel the need or want scalability in their player owned structure?
The more general question, Unless I'm way out of date office slots are finite in both NPC and Player stations, How could a corporation even use pooled assets without an office?
Seriously current configuration allows a corp to get an office at a station without the research and/or manufacturing slots and do the actual work remotely from at a starbase from the station office So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Kaius Fero
38
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:05:00 -
[1878] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Takara Mora wrote: A better name: EVE CONTRACTION
- Obsoleting of POS research labs (mobile labs) - Obsoleting of Faction Standings - Obsoleting of Drone Interfacing V skill - T2 Drone nerfs
Have we heard about anything actually being ADDED yet? Or just many of the deeper and long term mechanics (longer training time skills, longer term achievements like Faction Standings) being made more short term / less worth while?
diV isn't obsolete you scrublord, and "longer training time skills" got a massive thing with the new need to actually train refining skills Your the head of ... but the hair around the hole on you face.. oh .... |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
420
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:08:00 -
[1879] - Quote
Korthan Doshu wrote:But that's if we're doing "pull numbers out of our butts and make wild assumptions" games. This is a pretty popular game on eve-o. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
420
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:10:00 -
[1880] - Quote
I guess I should clarify; Korthan Doshu, I wasn't saying your numbers were inherently bad or anything, just making a general statement about eve-o. The fact that you've cottoned on to one of the major additional expenses inherent in nullsec production puts you above the majority of the posters in this thread. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
884
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:15:00 -
[1881] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:@LHA Tarawa It is specifically stated as a taxes Quote: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. (section of OP)
Read again.
The "tax" is what players will control, and that money goes to the station owner. The part they do not control will be the "cost" that serves as an ISK drain to remove ISK from the game (if goes nowhere).
Flay Nardieu wrote: There are already Lore associated and logical isk sinks in the game every order buy or sell has fees and or taxes, services provided only or in the majority by NPC groups and stations.
But they are too small to sufficient.
Flay Nardieu wrote:
And referencing back to quoted line from the original post, cost is never zero to begin with there are always costs and is always under some degree of control even so far as to limit production or suspend/cancel it in entirety. Some of the economic hyperboley posted by various people would have private business owners in coughing fits from laughing so hard.
Because most business owners are focused on micro-economics, which is intuitive. What we're dealing with on large scale is macro-economics, and that is very often counter-intuitive because of the massive feed back loops. Economists call it the paradox of thrift. What is good at the micro level, such as spending less than you earn, is bad to impossible at the macro level, where total spending must equal total income and savings is just a drain of money from active circulation that can only be replaced by borrowing new money into existence.
Most of the economic hyperbole comes from the people that are focused on micro-economics, and do not understand macro-economics. I can't tell you how many people I've encountered that dismiss macro-economic mathematically tautology as "Liberal hogwash" or "Keynesian Nonsense). |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2312
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:19:00 -
[1882] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium, the 5% reduction is a good addition for POS manufacturing but will you be removing the 10% penalty for T2 ship production at a POS? -á --á |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
884
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:22:00 -
[1883] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Weaselior wrote:you should face an increase, it is absurd that costs used to be amounts of isk so small they are rounding errors even to newbies
like that's a normal and expected part of this rebalance: slot fees should matter. it'll just get passed onto the consumer. Right, sure. Spoken by the guy who gets an 18% discount on his mineral costs, plus has been told by the dev's that null sec station slots costs will be significantly below high sec station slot costs. Who will be able to price out any high sec competition in any market you choose.
There is risk/cost associated with moving goods from null to high sec.
Yes, the small, high value items will get produced in null and moved in. jump freighter loads of small ammo is NOT going to be shipped in from null, even with a 14% lower slot cost. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7049
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:26:00 -
[1884] - Quote
Kaius Fero wrote:"This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay." Go figure :| yeah, who would have thought one of the foremost authorities on Eve: Online economics and gameplay would be posting so many correct things in this thread Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
884
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:27:00 -
[1885] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Please....the dev's have made it explicitly clear that null sec stations and POS's will enjoy far lower mfg costs that high sec because of this ridiculous idea that sov null sec has more inherent risk than high sec.
There is not just risk in null, there is cost too.
The cost of transporting goods to high sec. The cost of rent. The cost of sitting in station 75% of your play time becuase there is NOTHING you can do about a cloaky camper other than stay docked.
If null is so great, with no draw backs, then why is such a high % of the player base still in high? Because hull is NOT that great! |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:40:00 -
[1886] - Quote
Unezka Turigahl wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote: The sand is being drained away from the sandbox. That's all I'm saying. Eve is slowly starting to look like a theme park with no barriers of entry, no cooperation or interaction required to achieve serious results or goals.
Barriers of entry are more of a themepark trait, not sandbox. There is nothing sandboxy about having to grind through a billion quests to unlock the ability for your character to set up a factory.
If EVE were purely a sandbox, there wouldn't be skills to train, nor any PVE content, nor NPC's ....
EVE works as a game ecosystem because it is a hybrid of multiple game types - sandbox, pve, everything in between ... it can suck in people who would never try PVP, and gradually expose them to it and even get them to try it.
With such an amazingly integrated game system that is able to draw in players of all types, why would anyone want to destroy that by restricting certain types of gameplay? No amount of forcing will get non-pvp players to magically convert into pvp players (they'll simply go elsewhere) ... might as well instead maintain a game system complex and deep enough to allow both types to thrive, with even the non-pvp players being subject to various levels of pvp depending on what activities they participate in. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
419
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:42:00 -
[1887] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Please....the dev's have made it explicitly clear that null sec stations and POS's will enjoy far lower mfg costs that high sec because of this ridiculous idea that sov null sec has more inherent risk than high sec.
There is not just risk in null, there is cost too. The cost of transporting goods to high sec. The cost of rent. The cost of sitting in station 75% of your play time becuase there is NOTHING you can do about a cloaky camper other than stay docked. If null is so great, with no draw backs, then why is such a high % of the player base still in high? Because hull is NOT that great!
-º1: Wrong.
-º2: Wrong
-º3: Because you don't think. |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 16:44:00 -
[1888] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Please....the dev's have made it explicitly clear that null sec stations and POS's will enjoy far lower mfg costs that high sec because of this ridiculous idea that sov null sec has more inherent risk than high sec.
There is not just risk in null, there is cost too. The cost of transporting goods to high sec. The cost of rent. The cost of sitting in station 75% of your play time becuase there is NOTHING you can do about a cloaky camper other than stay docked. If null is so great, with no draw backs, then why is such a high % of the player base still in high? Because hull is NOT that great! -º1: Wrong. -º2: Wrong -º3: Because you don't think.
I'm totally sympathetic to the idea that nullsec could already be doing more industry if they tried harder. But they really do have risks and costs that highsec producers don't have, and those are part of why it's easier for them to just import from highsec. CCP clearly perceives this to be the case and wants to remedy that. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
886
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:05:00 -
[1889] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote: EVE works as a game ecosystem because it is a hybrid of multiple game types - sandbox, pve, everything in between ... it can suck in people who would never try PVP, and gradually expose them to it and even get them to try it.
I cannot put into words just how much this "try it, you will like it:" mind set absolutely drives me MAD with anger,
How DARE you think that you know more than someone else, how they enjoy playing a game.
ANY attempt to force PvP on someone that is not interested, is NOT going to make the realize they are really a closet sociopath that gets their kicks by pulling the wings off flies, salting snells and ruining other peoples' day in internet spaceships.
Attempts to force carebears to PvP, simply results in then cancelling their subscription.... PERIOD!!!!
EVE should embrace ALL play styles.
If you want to PvP, there are TONS of places in the game for that.
I have no interest in PvP. CCP either lets me play the game the way I want, avoiding PvP, or I don't play. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7050
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:08:00 -
[1890] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Takara Mora wrote: EVE works as a game ecosystem because it is a hybrid of multiple game types - sandbox, pve, everything in between ... it can suck in people who would never try PVP, and gradually expose them to it and even get them to try it.
I cannot put into words just how much this "try it, you will like it:" mind set absolutely drives me MAD with anger, How DARE you think that you know more than someone else, how they enjoy playing a game. because perusing the eve-o forums i find nearly every day that i know more about everything than 95% of eve players so it is a fairly safe bet i know more about what they would like than they do Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
886
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:09:00 -
[1891] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Please....the dev's have made it explicitly clear that null sec stations and POS's will enjoy far lower mfg costs that high sec because of this ridiculous idea that sov null sec has more inherent risk than high sec.
There is not just risk in null, there is cost too. The cost of transporting goods to high sec. The cost of rent. The cost of sitting in station 75% of your play time becuase there is NOTHING you can do about a cloaky camper other than stay docked. If null is so great, with no draw backs, then why is such a high % of the player base still in high? Because hull is NOT that great! -º1: Wrong. -º2: Wrong -º3: Because you don't think.
Apparently there are THOUSANDS of us null-carebears (I do not consider it an insult, I own it) that do not think, because we all sit around in station or POS commenting that there is NOTHING we can do to deal with that mother father null camper AGAIN! Nothing. can't find them. Can't kill them. Can't prevent them from pulling up beside you and lighting a cyno.
So, we just go back to high sec, where we can actually, you know, play the game!
Cloaky camper... the #1 killer of null profit, and the #1 thing that keeps people in high sec. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
886
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:15:00 -
[1892] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Takara Mora wrote: EVE works as a game ecosystem because it is a hybrid of multiple game types - sandbox, pve, everything in between ... it can suck in people who would never try PVP, and gradually expose them to it and even get them to try it.
I cannot put into words just how much this "try it, you will like it:" mind set absolutely drives me MAD with anger, How DARE you think that you know more than someone else, how they enjoy playing a game. because perusing the eve-o forums i find nearly every day that i know more about everything than 95% of eve players so it is a fairly safe bet i know more about what they would like than they do
Ugh... the arrogance! To think that you know what I enjoy more than I know what I enjoy?
Seriously, can you not see how insane that is?
I see posts from people like "I can't imagine anything more boring that sitting in a belt mining asteroids all day" and I think... yeah, you have the right to not enjoy that. I would never think that I know more than you, what you enjoy.
Why, when you see a post from someone that says they have no interest in PvP, do you think that you know their likes and dislikes more than they do?
ALL your mindset can do is force people to stop playing.
You can not make me play the game the way you want me to play it, because you can not make me play the game! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7050
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:17:00 -
[1893] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: Ugh... the arrogance! To think that you know what I enjoy more than I know what I enjoy?
Seriously, can you not see how insane that is?
one would think it would be, but when choosing between what we would prefer to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible we must go with the latter despite our unfailing capacity and preference to believe the former Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
419
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:20:00 -
[1894] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Blah
His blah with lots of spaces.! My Blah. Apparently there are THOUSANDS of us null-carebears (I do not consider it an insult, I own it) that do not think, because we all sit around in station or POS commenting that there is NOTHING we can do to deal with that mother father null camper AGAIN! Nothing. can't find them. Can't kill them. Can't prevent them from pulling up beside you and lighting a cyno. So, we just go back to high sec, where we can actually, you know, play the game! Cloaky camper... the #1 killer of null profit, and the #1 thing that keeps people in high sec.
Because of density. There are tons of way to go around AFK cloakers, search my posts in F&ID and you'll find a list, or search for topics around removing AFK cloaking in F&ID and you find lists. I don't care about AFK cloakers because I have the means to nullify them. If you are incapable of doing that, you should consider playing another game. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7050
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:23:00 -
[1895] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Because of density. There are tons of way to go around AFK cloakers, search my posts in F&ID and you'll find a list, or search for topics around removing AFK cloaking in F&ID and you find lists. I don't care about AFK cloakers because I have the means to nullify them. If you are incapable of doing that, you should consider playing another game. yes yes yes, we all know the "flee to highsec" one you've been such a fan of Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Destiven Mare
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:32:00 -
[1896] - Quote
Querns wrote:Destiven Mare wrote:A significant number of subscribers are clamoring for a dev blog in this series and instead CCP issues a fluff piece on one of their own??!! http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/developer-spotlight-goliath/I have zero issue with Goliath; I am curious to know whether this "dev blog" is a calculated move on CCP's part to further inflame industrialists or just more evidence of an utterly and absurdly inept PR department inside CCP. CCP Eterne is a "Community Representative and Live Events Author for EVE Online." I kinda doubt he (she?) has much of a hand in the industry changes. Devblogs aren't some sort of scarce resource that require the entire output of the company to pen -- they can have their non-developer and non-designer folks put out devblogs without somehow choking off the potential for others. That being said, I feel your weariness.
You and I are are absolutely on the same page. Any number of people at CCP can issue a dev blog. In fact, several have been issued since this iteration was authored. I am just flabbergasted that CCP issued pure advertising as we grow more frustrated with the silence in this arena. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
419
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:35:00 -
[1897] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Because of density. There are tons of way to go around AFK cloakers, search my posts in F&ID and you'll find a list, or search for topics around removing AFK cloaking in F&ID and you find lists. I don't care about AFK cloakers because I have the means to nullify them. If you are incapable of doing that, you should consider playing another game. yes yes yes, we all know the "flee to highsec" one you've been such a fan of
I am not at all a fan of that. If you would study my corp history and my killboard you would know where I live and what I do. But that's too much to ask form such an important person like you. |
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
131
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:47:00 -
[1898] - Quote
I was thinking of setting up my first POS this weekend. It would be pretty much exclusively for ME/PE research, BPCs and soon some T2 invention, but I'm not sure it will be worth it with these changes.
I farm/make my own charters and fuel, and to me it's worth the 100M or so a month to not wait 30 days for a research slot even in my somewhat remote home system, and my understanding is currently you don't even need to expose your BPOs if your POS is in the same system, or close system with the right science skills. However, with these changes let me get this straight:
1) The time I spent farming faction standing will almost be completely wasted 2) I'll still need to fuel and charter my POS 3) My BPOs will now be vulnerable when transporting, or having my corp war decced and POS attacked if I can't be online for a couple days and can't retrieve my BPOs in time. 4) I'll have to pay the same NPC tax as I would using the soon to be unlimited and completely safe NPC facilities.
Someone please tell me why I should bother having a POS after these changes? Unless we are getting some huge bonus somewhere I haven't seen, it seems to me to be a no brainer to *maybe* pay an up to 14% surcharge to have complete safety and save 100M or so a month on fuel and charters. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 18:04:00 -
[1899] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:I was thinking of setting up my first POS this weekend. It would be pretty much exclusively for ME/PE research, BPCs and soon some T2 invention, but I'm not sure it will be worth it with these changes.
I farm/make my own charters and fuel, and to me it's worth the 100M or so a month to not wait 30 days for a research slot even in my somewhat remote home system, and my understanding is currently you don't even need to expose your BPOs if your POS is in the same system, or close system with the right science skills. However, with these changes let me get this straight:
1) The time I spent farming faction standing will almost be completely wasted 2) I'll still need to fuel and charter my POS 3) My BPOs will now be vulnerable when transporting, or having my corp war decced and POS attacked if I can't be online for a couple days and can't retrieve my BPOs in time. 4) I'll have to pay the same NPC tax as I would using the soon to be unlimited and completely safe NPC facilities.
Someone please tell me why I should bother having a POS after these changes? Unless we are getting some huge bonus somewhere I haven't seen, it seems to me to be a no brainer to *maybe* pay an up to 14% surcharge to have complete safety and save 100M or so a month on fuel and charters.
If launched as planned you won't have much if any advantage, which sucks, operating a POS can be rewarding experience, my first was in 0.4 low sec till I got the ability to set in high... So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
887
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 18:04:00 -
[1900] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Blah
His blah with lots of spaces.! My Blah. Apparently there are THOUSANDS of us null-carebears (I do not consider it an insult, I own it) that do not think, because we all sit around in station or POS commenting that there is NOTHING we can do to deal with that mother father null camper AGAIN! Nothing. can't find them. Can't kill them. Can't prevent them from pulling up beside you and lighting a cyno. So, we just go back to high sec, where we can actually, you know, play the game! Cloaky camper... the #1 killer of null profit, and the #1 thing that keeps people in high sec. Because of density. There are tons of way to go around AFK cloakers, search my posts in F&ID and you'll find a list, or search for topics around removing AFK cloaking in F&ID and you find lists. I don't care about AFK cloakers because I have the means to nullify them. If you are incapable of doing that, you should consider playing another game.
Yep... Spent a bunch of time on F&ID, trying to wade through the hundreds of threads, all quickly locked by ISD as duplicate.
Didn't see and lists of ideas, but.... 1) It is clear that CCP has no intention of cloaky camping. 2) this isn't the game for me.
I'll be cancelling auto resubscribe again. No reason to pay for 4 accounts to sit in station or POS because there is STILL nothing that can be done about cloaky camping.
I've quit for this before, a couple time. 6 months go by, I start to miss my friends that play... I think, meh, let's play EVE again. I resub accounts. I get set up somewhere.... then a cloaky shows up, I'm unable to play..... so I again drop sub....
Peace out.... again. |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
419
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 18:16:00 -
[1901] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: Yep... Spent a bunch of time on F&ID, trying to wade through the hundreds of threads, all quickly locked by ISD as duplicate.
Didn't see and lists of ideas, but.... 1) It is clear that CCP has no intention of cloaky camping. 2) this isn't the game for me.
I'll be cancelling auto resubscribe again. No reason to pay for 4 accounts to sit in station or POS because there is STILL nothing that can be done about cloaky camping.
I've quit for this before, a couple time. 6 months go by, I start to miss my friends that play... I think, meh, let's play EVE again. I resub accounts. I get set up somewhere.... then a cloaky shows up, I'm unable to play..... so I again drop sub....
Peace out.... again.
That's your choice, and a good one if you feel that the game doesn't offer you a good pastime. Nothing is worse than getting bitter and don't be able to enjoy the game.
Btw. and this, only two of the lists. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2791
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 18:29:00 -
[1902] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Yep... Spent a bunch of time on F&ID, trying to wade through the hundreds of threads, all quickly locked by ISD as duplicate.
Didn't see and lists of ideas, but.... 1) It is clear that CCP has no intention of cloaky camping. 2) this isn't the game for me.
I'll be cancelling auto resubscribe again. No reason to pay for 4 accounts to sit in station or POS because there is STILL nothing that can be done about cloaky camping.
I've quit for this before, a couple time. 6 months go by, I start to miss my friends that play... I think, meh, let's play EVE again. I resub accounts. I get set up somewhere.... then a cloaky shows up, I'm unable to play..... so I again drop sub....
Peace out.... again.
Tell you what. How does this sound?
CCP gets rid of cloaky campers as soon as they get rid of suicide ganking in high sec. While I understand your frustration with a cloaky camper, I don't believe it is any more risky than running around in a high value ship in some high sec chokepoints, or mining in many systems, particularly those where the Code griefers hang out.
And I like to see you have accepted that null sec has just been gifted the small size, high end value item markets. 50,000 DCII's easily fit in a JF, and based on what I am seeing, that is a product that null sec has a massive massive advantage RIGHT NOW building, let alone after these changes are made.
Someone posted that current round trip costs for a JF is about 45 million. (edit. Bad math, slipped a digit.) If you are moving 10 billion ISK of product (say 20000 DCII's at their new null sec price of 500,000), that 45 million now becomes, what 0.45% transportation cost?
And it gets even better. If you really want to keep your costs (and risk) down, just use a black ops cyno to jump a Viator into a low sec system with a cargo hold of 10,000 cu m, which holds those 2000 DCII's. The Amarr and Jita market move about 10,000 combined daily. How many are actually consumed is another matter. One of the chief architects of these changes said about 5000. So it would be dead easy for an enterprising null sec group, with strict controls and a huge reach ingame, to completely corner the DCII market and price out of existence every high sec manufacturer. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7055
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 18:45:00 -
[1903] - Quote
where's our cost advantage to dciis? Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
831
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 18:55:00 -
[1904] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:
Ok. I can understand the RAM change, those things could get huge in a hurry with the intended changes.
The assembly array change is pretty meh for risking BPO's where they can't be locked down. The lab change is almost insulting barring significant changes to the base research and copy times on BPO's.
Copies are going to take less time than building now So the -5% is just even more icing
And I like the -5% to materials, it could be quite fun given how that is +1 me on things I think |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 19:07:00 -
[1905] - Quote
For some reason I don't see the nullsec producers putting 10,000,000,000 on a JF to fly into a hub. Even if they do one jump with that much into a lowsec system, they'd have to carve out a bunch of trips to take that much ISK into highsec, and the time/effort transportation costs of that could start getting pretty high...I don't think it's at all plausible to think that transportation would only be (item value)*(.5%); I expect it to be an order of magnitude above that. |
ST Mahan
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 19:17:00 -
[1906] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:I was thinking of setting up my first POS this weekend. It would be pretty much exclusively for ME/PE research, BPCs and soon some T2 invention, but I'm not sure it will be worth it with these changes.
I farm/make my own charters and fuel, and to me it's worth the 100M or so a month to not wait 30 days for a research slot even in my somewhat remote home system, and my understanding is currently you don't even need to expose your BPOs if your POS is in the same system, or close system with the right science skills. However, with these changes let me get this straight:
1) The time I spent farming faction standing will almost be completely wasted 2) I'll still need to fuel and charter my POS 3) My BPOs will now be vulnerable when transporting, or having my corp war decced and POS attacked if I can't be online for a couple days and can't retrieve my BPOs in time. 4) I'll have to pay the same NPC tax as I would using the soon to be unlimited and completely safe NPC facilities.
Someone please tell me why I should bother having a POS after these changes? Unless we are getting some huge bonus somewhere I haven't seen, it seems to me to be a no brainer to *maybe* pay an up to 14% surcharge to have complete safety and save 100M or so a month on fuel and charters.
My understanding based on the various official posts:
1) Yes, as it relates to POS anchoring 2) Yes 3) Yes, you can leave BPO's in research stations and make BPC's. This may be a better option for high value BPO's. Copy times are supposed to shorten. We need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings. 4) You will have to pay at tax at your POS, but I suspect you can mitigate the tax because your POS will be less congested than the stations. We need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings to see. My guess is that multiple arrays (even with no slots) will lower 'congestion' and the tax rate at your POS. Again though we need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3122
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 19:38:00 -
[1907] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:Urziel99 wrote:
Ok. I can understand the RAM change, those things could get huge in a hurry with the intended changes.
The assembly array change is pretty meh for risking BPO's where they can't be locked down. The lab change is almost insulting barring significant changes to the base research and copy times on BPO's.
Copies are going to take less time than building now So the -5% is just even more icing And I like the -5% to materials, it could be quite fun given how that is +1 me on things I think
Better than +1 ME.
A common base waste is 10%. ME 1 halves it to 5%. But you need to get to ME 3 to halve the waste again, to 2.5% Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2793
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 19:39:00 -
[1908] - Quote
Korthan Doshu wrote:For some reason I don't see the nullsec producers putting 10,000,000,000 on a JF to fly into a hub. Even if they do one jump with that much into a lowsec system, they'd have to carve out a bunch of trips to take that much ISK into highsec, and the time/effort transportation costs of that could start getting pretty high...I don't think it's at all plausible to think that transportation would only be (item value)*(.5%); I expect it to be an order of magnitude above that.
Yeah, I can see moving 10 billion in a freighter as not smart, though we see examples of that every day in Niarja. But my example of a Viator holding 1 billion being covop cynoed in and then breezing through to a hub is still very valid. Or a
But even that is going to be a moot point. As one of the architects pointed out, they now plan on implementing plans they have been holding onto for years to "increase density in null", which reads as jam more people into null creating null sec hubs that have zero need for high sec, other than compressed low end ore.
Jita , Amarr, Dodixie, etc will be reduced dramatically in trade volume.
Null will become the new high sec. It is already there in safety levels, and will soon have an uptick in population density as the cartels start a real PR campaign for immigration.
High sec, on the other hand, will continue to become a wasteland. This is of course, is accelerated once the T2 invention high sec nerf arrives in the fall, the high sec Incursion income is nerfed even more, and high sec L4 missions are "enhanced" with new changes that make them impossible to run solo. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 19:43:00 -
[1909] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:TLDR: Surely this isn't mainly about ISK sinks, it's about highsec and nullsec. CUT: AWESOME, Amazing, cogent, econmoic analysis.... so rare to see such a long post, from someone that clearly "gets it". Thanks.
Okay, perhaps it is a high/null re-balance. I had seen (and agreed with) the idea of drastically reducing high sec station slots and upping the null outpost slots. I could see where they do NOT want to cut high sec slots. They do nt want the VERY significant portion of the player base that lives in high sec, and is NEVER going to move out, to log in, try to play, find nothing to do.... then drop their subscriptions. This is why high sec belts are never going to go away (or even be nerfed back to teh point they were all mined out). Lack of high sec resources does NOT push people to null, it pushes them out of the game. So, much higher slot prices would ensure that they are not "totally blocked", just lower profit. However, if it were ONLY about re-balance, then why apply the cost structure to null at all? 14% cost added to high sec, 0% to null. Then the cost/risk of shipping goods into high sec would be sure to be rewarded with higher profit margins. Some things are easy enough to move to justify the profit, while other items (ammo) are too big and cheap (ammo), that people would not build in null and move it in. What I do think you are definitely onto is that there is a shift in CCP thinking on the way of implimenting risk v. reward. Previous attempts focused on buffing null. Those were largely disasters as it exploded isk creation and concentration. If I could suddenly make twice as much ISK ratting null, the bosses with the titans doubled my rent. My profits didn't really change that much, but the wallets of the bosses got way fatter, very quickly. So, now they are looking for ways to "rebalance" that do nto involve buffing null, but rather nerfing high.... which is what has the high sec player base (a huge portion of CCP's income) so concerned. Perhaps CCP could finally do something about the #1 bat to teh head of null profitability... the cloaky camper. What good is it that I can make 2x the isk/hr in null, if I spend over half my time sitting in station because there is NOTHING that can be done about a cloaky camper. Give us something, anything, that makes it possible to hunt down and kill a claoky camper! Poof, null sec profitability skyrockets!!!
The whole point of cloaking is to be untrack-able, that is required for other key aspects in the game, and should not be tampered with. I am assuming you are an alt if so perhaps a reliable combat escort from your main's Corp/Alliance would be of use and or a decoy ship or two, a very simple concept to start you off thinking about some possibilities, these obviously are never a guarantee but then nothing is in Eve, except lol, death and taxes especially now, the taxes, bit like RL really in that respect. If you are a solo player (to be fair most MMOGS don't really like solo players it doesn't fit their homogeneous,gaming/business model they stereotype the player and generally most try to force, sorry encourage you into groups/corps/guilds whatever, they assume rightly or wrongly that everyone wants to be and can work in a team/group, but they don't) this can make solo play harder to cope with, but not impossible. you just have to be more prepared and plan better and work harder.
|
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 19:51:00 -
[1910] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:For some reason I don't see the nullsec producers putting 10,000,000,000 on a JF to fly into a hub. Even if they do one jump with that much into a lowsec system, they'd have to carve out a bunch of trips to take that much ISK into highsec, and the time/effort transportation costs of that could start getting pretty high...I don't think it's at all plausible to think that transportation would only be (item value)*(.5%); I expect it to be an order of magnitude above that. Yeah, I can see moving 10 billion in a freighter as not smart, though we see examples of that every day in Niarja. But my example of a Viator holding 1 billion being covop cynoed in and then breezing through to a hub is still very valid. Or a But even that is going to be a moot point. As one of the architects pointed out, they now plan on implementing plans they have been holding onto for years to "increase density in null", which reads as jam more people into null creating null sec hubs that have zero need for high sec, other than compressed low end ore. Jita , Amarr, Dodixie, etc will be reduced dramatically in trade volume. Null will become the new high sec. It is already there in safety levels, and will soon have an uptick in population density as the cartels start a real PR campaign for immigration. High sec, on the other hand, will continue to become a wasteland. This is of course, is accelerated once the T2 invention high sec nerf arrives in the fall, the high sec Incursion income is nerfed even more, and high sec L4 missions are "enhanced" with new changes that make them impossible to run solo.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it's impossible; I just don't think there's enough evidence to have confidence that this will happen.
I do wonder what they think is broken about invention though...seems to work just fine to me. |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
419
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 20:00:00 -
[1911] - Quote
ST Mahan wrote: 3) Yes, you can leave BPO's in research stations and make BPC's. This may be a better option for high value BPO's. Copy times are supposed to shorten. We need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings. 4) You will have to pay at tax at your POS, but I suspect you can mitigate the tax because your POS will be less congested than the stations. We need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings to see. My guess is that multiple arrays (even with no slots) will lower 'congestion' and the tax rate at your POS. Again though we need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings.
You cannot research BPC.
The fact that you have to pay money to whatever AT ALL on YOUR stick is an outrage. |
ST Mahan
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 20:14:00 -
[1912] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:ST Mahan wrote: 3) Yes, you can leave BPO's in research stations and make BPC's. This may be a better option for high value BPO's. Copy times are supposed to shorten. We need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings. 4) You will have to pay at tax at your POS, but I suspect you can mitigate the tax because your POS will be less congested than the stations. We need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings to see. My guess is that multiple arrays (even with no slots) will lower 'congestion' and the tax rate at your POS. Again though we need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings.
You cannot research BPC. The fact that you have to pay money to whatever AT ALL on YOUR stick is an outrage.
BPC research. True, but you will have to research your expensive BPO's in stations, make copies (at supposed to be much faster rates), then use the BPC to manufacture in your POS (with 5% material benefit in POS arrays). This is more work, but looks like the way to get around the risk of putting expensive BPO's in POS's.
Then I guess you will need to hang a sign up on the POS saying 'Don't Shoot No Expensive BPO's Here'.
No comment on the tax for running a POS. Still need to see how it compares to using slots in stations. Will need to see all of the upcoming Dev Blogs and other official comments.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1027
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 20:39:00 -
[1913] - Quote
Mynnna's latest blog has useful historical figures in it:
http://thethirdn.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/data-based-contempt/ Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 20:56:00 -
[1914] - Quote
Mynnna's post is informative if not entirely on-point.
I don't think anybody cares whether all industry moves to nullsec. What people care about is whether the majority of industrial profits move to nullsec. Mynnna hedges in the article about whether this will happen. We need to see the numbers from the next few dev blogs to be able to make better predictions about that. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 20:59:00 -
[1915] - Quote
Well I worry about the change to remotely copying blueprints..specifically cap blueprints. No amount of change to the labs in terms of hit points will help. And its not practical to expect people to get it out before the pos goes in reinforce. Any good enemy will know your time zone and simply attack the pos when you are asleep. Such a system once again favors the large mega alliances that can have 24 hour coverage and makes it harder for the small guy.
But if you make the mobile labs like the SMA's which can have stuff taken out of them when the pos is in reinforce..that would be a decent balance.
I predict less copy sets being made. Forcing more to buy originals..hmm maybe this is a hidden isk sink also.
This also penalizes new players..as us older players have had our bpo's ME researched for years...
Why not do all the changes but keep in remote operation of labs like it is now but add a cost because we are using a station to do it. And it could scale up based on how much the station is used..but we could still remote research our bpo's and remote copy them. This also helps new peeps because they wont need empire standing to put up a pos. |
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 21:16:00 -
[1916] - Quote
ST Mahan wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:ST Mahan wrote: 3) Yes, you can leave BPO's in research stations and make BPC's. This may be a better option for high value BPO's. Copy times are supposed to shorten. We need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings. 4) You will have to pay at tax at your POS, but I suspect you can mitigate the tax because your POS will be less congested than the stations. We need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings to see. My guess is that multiple arrays (even with no slots) will lower 'congestion' and the tax rate at your POS. Again though we need to wait and see the upcoming blog postings.
You cannot research BPC. The fact that you have to pay money to whatever AT ALL on YOUR stick is an outrage. BPC research. True, but you will have to research your expensive BPO's in stations, make copies (at supposed to be much faster rates), then use the BPC to manufacture in your POS (with 5% material benefit in POS arrays). This is more work, but looks like the way to get around the risk of putting expensive BPO's in POS's. Then I guess you will need to hang a sign up on the POS saying 'Don't Shoot No Expensive BPO's Here'. No comment on the tax for running a POS. Still need to see how it compares to using slots in stations. Will need to see all of the upcoming Dev Blogs and other official comments.
It all comes back to the "POS factor" in this equation these structures have never been kept up to date with the rest of the game play releases hot dropped on us players by CCP, so they are now realistically unable to be effective in their ability to cope with these new game play styles, which suggests a half thought concept again, and implies they are only focusing on one facet of the idea in the rush to develop it. Yes industry needs a revamp but when you build a new release you make sure you don't create a great gaff in doing it. POS's used to have to be besieged properly hence Cap ships, now any Corp with 10-15 Tonka Toys, can shove it into reinforced mode whilst the owning Corp is offline due to their time zone and effective/available play time differences, how do I know this? simple been there and done it, developed and refined for use and works well in WH's. especially if the owning Corp is not attentive to players dropping in then logging off almost straight away until the fleet is built up. |
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 21:51:00 -
[1917] - Quote
While we're addressing all things Indy + POS talk,,,can we get another pass on the T1 hauling industrial ships such that at least one of them can put REPROCESSED ICE PRODUCTS in the specialized hold?
Hauling block ice is one thing, but the need is also for reprocessed ice.
ty.
|
Valterra Craven
203
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 22:36:00 -
[1918] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Update!
[list]
All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
Still havent seen any mention of what you plan to do with the special Hyosdya mobile lab.... |
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
31
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 22:51:00 -
[1919] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Please....the dev's have made it explicitly clear that null sec stations and POS's will enjoy far lower mfg costs that high sec because of this ridiculous idea that sov null sec has more inherent risk than high sec.
There is not just risk in null, there is cost too. The cost of transporting goods to high sec. The cost of rent. The cost of sitting in station 75% of your play time becuase there is NOTHING you can do about a cloaky camper other than stay docked. If null is so great, with no draw backs, then why is such a high % of the player base still in high? Because hull is NOT that great! -º1: Wrong. -º2: Wrong -º3: Because you don't think. Apparently there are THOUSANDS of us null-carebears (I do not consider it an insult, I own it) that do not think, because we all sit around in station or POS commenting that there is NOTHING we can do to deal with that mother father null camper AGAIN! Nothing. can't find them. Can't kill them. Can't prevent them from pulling up beside you and lighting a cyno. So, we just go back to high sec, where we can actually, you know, play the game! Cloaky camper... the #1 killer of null profit, and the #1 thing that keeps people in high sec.
Here is the solution you are not force to pvp but, you can have a PVP wing in your corp.
Cloakys easy way to deal with them, bait them out once they tackle you and lights a cyno, YOU light another cyno and bring your PVP wing.
Problem solve there is content for your Carebears and your PVP wing.
You dont have to pvp but you have the option to defend yourself or not
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1497
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 22:51:00 -
[1920] - Quote
Korthan Doshu wrote:Mynnna's post is informative if not entirely on-point.
I don't think anybody cares whether all industry moves to nullsec. What people care about is whether the majority of industrial profits move to nullsec. Mynnna hedges in the article about whether this will happen. We need to see the numbers from the next few dev blogs to be able to make better predictions about that.
Of course. We haven't even internally decided how to do final exploitation of the new mechanics until we see all the final blogs. However, from what has been released, its clear the high margins of some types of productions are going to get compressed. by nullsec. To claim doom and gloom for highsec production though is laughable. Those of you in sweet spots like JF's are going to get creamed though. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
118
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 23:11:00 -
[1921] - 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.
I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? )? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS?
Apart from that...
Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably.
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 00:08:00 -
[1922] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote: ...
Why not do all the changes but keep in remote operation of labs like it is now but add a cost because we are using a station to do it. And it could scale up based on how much the station is used..but we could still remote research our bpo's and remote copy them. This also helps new peeps because they wont need empire standing to put up a pos.
Aside from the last line in the partial quote where I disagree about standings removal helping new players, I agree and find it actually pragmatic and fits with common sense and lore.
heck it can be rolled into cannon with something like this
"With the increased independence of the capsuleers and proliferation capsuleer corporate owned structures in space, Corporations throughout the various empires have decided that the high bandwith secure channels used in the remote S&I sector are a premium service and not inclusive to office rental fees in the past. The XYZ initiative has introduced the universal HBSC surcharge"
Wow, I just might have meet all 3 principles in the "Big Plan" So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1204
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 00:13:00 -
[1923] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1273
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 00:30:00 -
[1924] - Quote
Petrified wrote:I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? )? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS? Apart from that... Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably. Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'.
Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5233
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 01:06:00 -
[1925] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Petrified wrote:I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? )? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS? Apart from that... Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably. Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'. Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also.
And when the devblog on Teams comes out, we'll have our answer to the question about third-party taxation of jobs run by a corporation in a POS or outpost. What I expect to see is NPCs that we pay to do our research for us. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
174
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 01:45:00 -
[1926] - Quote
Is there a timeline for the additional Blogs? I have no idea why it is taking so long on such a key item like industry. At this rate the last Blog will come out..what? a week before release?
We are not children in need of comfort. Release the info already!
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5234
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 01:49:00 -
[1927] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:We are not children in need of comfort. Release the info already!
Maybe they're toying with us. Or maybe they're organising FanFest 2014, so lots of other things are falling to the wayside. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
414
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 01:54:00 -
[1928] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Petrified wrote:I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? )? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS? Apart from that... Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably. Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'. Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also.
Research is one of the most labour intensive things you can do, most of the work would be done by lab techs running reactions, producing reports on results, rerunning reactions to get correlated results and repeatable processes etc etc. It isn't unreasonable to model this work as a cost when people run up shitloads more jobs. Likewise with manufacturing as output is scaled up so are support costs. I have no problem with these changes.
I'm still not supportive of null being buffed to be better in every way. It makes for a very 'nilla choice. make profit? move to null. Scratch a living as you don't have time to devote to worshipping the overblown egos of the few in charge? Tough. That may be a bit tongue in cheek but the point stands. It simply doesn't make sense that the best industry would be in the most chaotic and volatile regions. I still believe that s more people are forced to null things will become much more dull. Right now if I need to move something I use cheap and cheerful tech 1 haulers. Things get more dangerous? I'll fly the BR I trained for and rarely even be seen. Need moon goo? someone needs to move it to high sec. In future? no need just build inside the secure null bubbles of sov.
I would much rather see the controlled sections of null that have been stable for a long time start to have more NPC stations set up. after all these companies would want profit, therefore would move into the new markets. By this means the number of factory/research/copy lines would increase in null which is the point of the changes according to those who live in null. If industry is to be viable in null let it at least be on a level playing field. As systems become more populated with NPC stations the region becomes more stable, starts having mission agents etc etc. Only it is sov controlled, not concord controlled. Pockets of sov controlled hisec start to appear in null which would directly model such expansion as in America into the wild west that we are told null is ( or at least should be).
I cannot see how moving anything and everything of increased value into one section of space can be good. Having read the arguments put forward I can see the reasons why null sec needs more industry capability but this should come through NPC stations being built at planets alongside the player owned POS etc. This would then push areas of null into competitive states with hisec/losec but would have the risk/reward advantage of having more resources available (in some cases resources that hisec simply does not have which I would also change). Pos's would still be viable in the same way as in hisec to increase availability of slots etc but would again be more advantageous than in hi/losec as they are already bonused for null operation.
In short I would much rather change to model the whole of industry in every sec status region but with resources available on a risk/reward basis as we currently have. That way in hisec you need to work harder/smarter/ for your money but can still compete if you are a skilled S&I bod. Losec would be the fulcrum of the balance. Reasonable resources but with the risk that comes with it. Losec would be the best returns on resources if you control space well enough to provide security for the region. The more secure the region (i.e. the longer it is held and is below some measurable level of risk) the more NPC's come and build stations. Perhaps they should be invited in by the SOV owners so that they get a say in the services provided and where. You own the region? you get to ick and choose who does business with you. Take control of the region? you get to tell the corps there to change services if you choose.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2798
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 01:56:00 -
[1929] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:Is there a timeline for the additional Blogs? I have no idea why it is taking so long on such a key item like industry. At this rate the last Blog will come out..what? a week before release?
We are not children in need of comfort. Release the info already!
Several reasons why they have not released the followup blogs. Take your pick as to which ones are most likely.
1. They want to have something to talk about at Fanfest, so will be releasing 2 or more then. 2. The dev's truly are on vacation, and this is standard quality of work. 3. CCP is perhaps realizing the blowback on this mess is going to be more that the null sec cartels assured them it would be, and they are scrambling to reduce the impact by altering the mechanics before they announce them. 4. CCP is giving the groups that have the full story, the inside information, as much time to get their ducks in a row to consolidate their economic position as possible. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
14222
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 05:17:00 -
[1930] - Quote
I think I know which one you would pick as most likely President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III-á |
|
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 06:08:00 -
[1931] - Quote
history has show us that its a combination of three. one of them is false. 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.
|
Oxide Ammar
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 07:55:00 -
[1932] - Quote
Where the hell the rest of the Blogs?...jeez |
Lorna Sicling
Helix Pulse Brothers of Tangra
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 16:25:00 -
[1933] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Regarding manufacturing and supply in Eve, I don't disagree.
As for passing along costs...here, let me explain how I was doing invention:
this entire story is you discovering return on capital over time is different than profit per unit, and is important (this is, incidentally, why low-demand markets stabilize at higher profits per unit) it is not relevant to our discussion on price. it is you realizing that your invention business is about earning a percentage return on your money and that a loss on a unit may be preferable to keeping the isk tied up making no money for a long period of time. the entire story is the short period when demand changes and the market has not yet stabilized, something I've alluded to many times in my posts and you seem to have not understood. if you hold onto your units you can be assured you will sell them eventually at the new cost+%: that just might be a stupid decision because you spend so long making no return on that amount that you wind up with a lower roi than if you'd taken a loss immediately and reinvested in more profitable enterprises.
Do Goons still believe that moon goo is free?
To not think that adding the need to copy things before manufacturing now, or instead to have to flow BPO's around hi-sec for your minions to gank is a bad idea is clearly motivated by the desire to see the latter. Oh yeah, all of those BPO's are only 50 mil max. Can you contract me 10 battleship BPO's and I'll accept it for 500 million ISK.
The reality is that larger and more established industrialists will spread out a bit and be annoyed and inconvenienced, especially if the lock mechanism isn't changed. The smaller and newer industrialists will have to move poorly researched BPO's around and end up getting banked by your Goons while you relax with your CSAA hidden from danger deep in null.
Not a good change for newer players, but a major PITA for most others. Industrialist - currently renting in null sec.
Writer of the blog "A Scientist's Life in Eve" - proud member of the Eve Blog Pack |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2804
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 16:38:00 -
[1934] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:Mynnna's post is informative if not entirely on-point.
I don't think anybody cares whether all industry moves to nullsec. What people care about is whether the majority of industrial profits move to nullsec. Mynnna hedges in the article about whether this will happen. We need to see the numbers from the next few dev blogs to be able to make better predictions about that. Of course. We haven't even internally decided how to do final exploitation of the new mechanics until we see all the final blogs. However, from what has been released, its clear the high margins of some types of productions are going to get compressed. by nullsec. To claim doom and gloom for highsec production though is laughable. Those of you in sweet spots like JF's are going to get creamed though.
So bottom line, goons will control any high profit product, and leave the dregs for high sec . Good to know.
Yeah, congrats. Well played on how you designed these changes to explicitly benefit the cartels. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
427
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 16:44:00 -
[1935] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Petrified wrote:I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? )? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS? Apart from that... Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably. Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'. Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also.
WTF is that logic. My POS uses Drones and Robots, they get fueled and provided with energy by the tower. I already pay for that with POS Fuel. Now what? |
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:43:00 -
[1936] - Quote
In general, I like the changes. This coming from a high sec industrialist.
But...in regards to a POS
1. I'd like to see some type of anchor-able secure container, maybe a new blueprint container (without the stacking issues), that allows a locked blueprint to be installed to labs/assembly lines and returned to the container in a locked state once the job is delivered. A means of bpo security at the pos.
2. Materials that are consumed by assembly lines should be fed from an anchored corporate hanger. No one likes the click fest of moving materials to all of the different assembly lines. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
415
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:58:00 -
[1937] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: WTF is that logic. My POS uses Drones and Robots, they get fueled and provided with energy by the tower. I already pay for that with POS Fuel. Now what?
This is as stupid as the the 4.99 for watching the recorded CCP videos on Twitch, that CCP introduced yesterday afternoon.
We already know ships have crews, stations are almost certain to have them too. Doesn't matter anyway, it's its just an additional cost however you rationalize it. |
ScrapinJen
Zan Industries ZADA ALLIANCE
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:38:00 -
[1938] - Quote
Thead Enco wrote:Altrue wrote:First :DDamn!I started reading and I really like the whole "splitting in six", it helps give each change its spotlight while splitting discussions, and integration of what these change means, for the average player. Edit : 1- I don't like the icons on the show info of bill of materials. They are very 2003. The whole gratient background and stuff. Their shape in itself is also quite.. meh :D. You should make these icons in line visually with the little skillbook on the ship show info. 2 - The line " After summer, R.A.M. and R.db will instead behave like any other material in the game. However, to keep loss ratios similar l we will:" contains a typo. There is a "I we" that snuck inside the final devblog :p 3 - Kuddos for the removal of Extra Materials!!! 4 - Cost scaling system for industry jobs, hahaha so evil . Sounds awesome! (Also stealth isk sink) IMHO, limiting it to 14% of the base item is way too low as a hard cap, but thats my opinion. 5 - " The Blueprints in question can be researched remotely, by installing them at a station while using a Starbase Mobile Laboratory in the same solar system. With the removal of slots this use case is no longer that important, as we expect research slots to be widely more available." o_O I didn't know that! Seems broken, happy that it goes away. 6 - POSes in high-sec without standing requirements? Cool! But we still need a way to easily remove offline POSes !! 7 - And this last teaser of the new industry UI... Aaawww so sweeeeeeet!! Answer to number 6, Wardec>Blap POS>WIN
Yes the pos thing is to allow the alliances that can no longer handle living in null sec to be able to Wardec in high sec.
Can't get high sec people to null sec? Bring the null sec to the high sec people!
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:48:00 -
[1939] - Quote
I've been waiting for someone to make the argument on how keeping BP's secure at a POS... I don't see happening soon so I'll just make the Pro BP at POS argument and then promptly squash it.
Blueprints will be secure at a POS because since we will be able to run them from containers and audit contains can lock items so they can be viewed without taken, You only need to be able to see the blueprint to use it much the same as in corporate hangers now. And having them locked in an audit container keeps them in one place too.
Above is about the best argument that could be made...
However
- Corporate roles and permissions regarding container access is not exactly straightforward especially at a POS
- This of course assumes you can run jobs from an anchored corporate hangar at the POS
- Audit containers rely on passwords, that can be requested if a member has a permission or role(s) that allow it, simply unlock the item and take
- The type of audit containers that could be located at a POS are generally small enough to be taken assembled in the typical industrial ship
- Even if the BPs (or other items) are locked it only requires waiting till the activity log has been idle long enough then repackage, result 1 repackaged audit container and everything that was in it right there in a personal hangar
Yup zero net gain still, and just as much of an annoyance, Hey at least a thief can still steal big easier.... So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:05:00 -
[1940] - Quote
Barune Darkor wrote:In general, I like the changes. This coming from a high sec industrialist.
But...in regards to a POS
1. I'd like to see some type of anchor-able secure container, maybe a new blueprint container (without the stacking issues), that allows a locked blueprint to be installed to labs/assembly lines and returned to the container in a locked state once the job is delivered. A means of bpo security at the pos.
2. Materials that are consumed by assembly lines should be fed from an anchored corporate hanger. No one likes the click fest of moving materials to all of the different assembly lines.
I always envisioned BP not being physically moved but more akin to DRM (DIgital Rights Mangement) scheme hence the existing status of remote from office, POS work
In regards to your second point, that actually would remove "game play" one of the principles touted in the announcement. Additionally the ease will come at a price, some corporations actually budget materials to each array. So say with your suggestion member A goes a little (probably alot) overboard in producing ammo members B and C can't do their work in drones and small ships (or whatever). The existing method prevents that, requires more management but honestly that is kind of the point in operating a POS. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:08:00 -
[1941] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:I've been waiting for someone to make the argument on how keeping BP's secure at a POS... I don't see happening soon so I'll just make the Pro BP at POS argument and then promptly squash it. Blueprints will be secure at a POS because since we will be able to run them from containers and audit contains can lock items so they can be viewed without taken, You only need to be able to see the blueprint to use it much the same as in corporate hangers now. And having them locked in an audit container keeps them in one place too.Above is about the best argument that could be made... However
- Corporate roles and permissions regarding container access is not exactly straightforward especially at a POS
- This of course assumes you can run jobs from an anchored corporate hangar at the POS
- Audit containers rely on passwords, that can be requested if a member has a permission or role(s) that allow it, simply unlock the item and take
- The type of audit containers that could be located at a POS are generally small enough to be taken assembled in the typical industrial ship
- Even if the BPs (or other items) are locked it only requires waiting till the activity log has been idle long enough then repackage, result 1 repackaged audit container and everything that was in it right there in a personal hangar
Yup zero net gain still, and just as much of an annoyance, Hey at least a thief can still steal big easier....
If you anchor a container at a pos, does it have to be launched for corporation? That would keep it separate from the corporate password request.
At least one person would have the ability to take all of the blueprints. That's a given but seems better than no bpo security at all.
If someone hasn't used their bpos in a month, i doubt they are really and industrialist. I don't think the 30 day audit expiry is really that much of an issue. That could just be categorized as the risk factor.
It would probably require a new type of anchor-able container specifically for bpos.
CCP are the ones that can look at the code. I'd expect them to figure out the details |
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:14:00 -
[1942] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:Barune Darkor wrote:In general, I like the changes. This coming from a high sec industrialist.
But...in regards to a POS
1. I'd like to see some type of anchor-able secure container, maybe a new blueprint container (without the stacking issues), that allows a locked blueprint to be installed to labs/assembly lines and returned to the container in a locked state once the job is delivered. A means of bpo security at the pos.
2. Materials that are consumed by assembly lines should be fed from an anchored corporate hanger. No one likes the click fest of moving materials to all of the different assembly lines. I always envisioned BP not being physically moved but more akin to DRM (DIgital Rights Mangement) scheme hence the existing status of remote from office, POS work In regards to your second point, that actually would remove "game play" one of the principles touted in the announcement. Additionally the ease will come at a price, some corporations actually budget materials to each array. So say with your suggestion member A goes a little (probably alot) overboard in producing ammo members B and C can't do their work in drones and small ships (or whatever). The existing method prevents that, requires more management but honestly that is kind of the point in operating a POS.
That why you have different hanger divisions and division access with corp roles and titles. Do corporations give out the rent factory slot rule to a significant number of their membership? |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:35:00 -
[1943] - Quote
@Barune Darkor
In the current mechanics no independent structure can be anchored inside a POS, and dealing with high-sec secure and audit containers can only be anchored in space below a certain level. Anyway to be able to access the arrays the BP has to be in something under the corporate access method either in the array itself or corporate hangar division either at the POS or for now an office in system.
Most corps use POS for corp projects, they aren't geared for individual use. However there IS a way, actually it very similar to renting research slots to alliance members. In either case it is not easy in any way shape or form. It took me over a month to finally get it down and explainable. The instructions would require a topic unto itself and probably be at least 3 posts due to character limit.
It would be nice to see if the teams thing that hasn't been disclosed would change that.
The complexity and scope of corporate management of mid and above size groups is sadly too close to diverting way of topic and I rather say your idea is nice in principle but not in line with past developments or exiting management mechanics So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:42:00 -
[1944] - Quote
@Flay
Thanks for being civil, which doesn't seem to happen much in this thread.
This is very much from a small indie corp perspective.
Here's hoping ccp figures out some type of solution that doesn't involve copying everything.
Cheers, |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 07:05:00 -
[1945] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Petrified wrote:I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? )? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS? Apart from that... Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably. Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'. Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also.
You are making assumptions I would like clarified from the Devs as to their logic. We can rationalize it this way and that, but in the end the current facts are: - When a BPO/BPC needs materials, it is listed as part of the cost of research and industry. - I've spent a decent amount of time training research skills... why would I hire researchers who are not present on the predominately auto-mated POS?
It would make better sense for CCP to add a consumable "widget" necessary to aid the research with your reason. No, I would like CCPs actual take on the why. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 07:06:00 -
[1946] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:
And when the devblog on Teams comes out, we'll have our answer to the question about third-party taxation of jobs run by a corporation in a POS or outpost. What I expect to see is NPCs that we pay to do our research for us.
I am hoping that this gets answered at least there, if not here.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
418
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 07:15:00 -
[1947] - Quote
Petrified wrote: - I've spent a decent amount of time training research skills... why would I hire researchers who are not present on the predominately auto-mated POS?
The professor at my old Uni spent a long time becoming such, why then would he need a good chunk of the material science faculty to help research and develop graphene? Your character is effectively the lead researcher but there is no way you would have the time to run all the experiments, gather all results, run all analysis, re-reun everything again , refine processes and reactions, rerun yet again...
I'm fine with the idea of needing research assistance since it makes absolute sense that you would. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 07:55:00 -
[1948] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Petrified wrote: - I've spent a decent amount of time training research skills... why would I hire researchers who are not present on the predominately auto-mated POS?
The professor at my old Uni spent a long time becoming such, why then would he need a good chunk of the material science faculty to help research and develop graphene? Your character is effectively the lead researcher but there is no way you would have the time to run all the experiments, gather all results, run all analysis, re-reun everything again , refine processes and reactions, rerun yet again... I'm fine with the idea of needing research assistance since it makes absolute sense that you would.
I would be fine with it as well... if that is the reason they give. What I am looking for is the reasoning for such a 'tax'.
All this time I figured the with state of our advanced technology in the EVE universe we predominately used automation for research tasks which revolved around pre-existing blue prints: ie, we are making it more efficient, or making copies, through automated technology rather than making something new and fresh - like an actual BPO for a new ship design that would require an actual researcher of the sort we keep rescuing for various corporations. It used to be that the cost of POS fuel (pre-fuel block) at one point took into account the various functions going on in a POS. Research modules used more of X than Manufacturing modules (been long enough I forget the exact numbers of which items).
So... if I am now paying people to conduct research: why do I need them after this summer when I did not before and if I did need them before and we just never talked about them, will I owe them back pay?
One other thing I did not see a dev response on (or I forgot it after 90+ pages): I fully understand the scaling cost for manufacturing - in fact, it makes perfect sense. However, the removal of the slots themselves make no sense at all in that there is suddenly an endless number of manufacturing lines. Should limits on the number of corporate offices be removed while retaining the scaling cost? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
418
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 08:57:00 -
[1949] - Quote
Actually rather than endless lines i would have preferred just the opening up of more moons for pos. I would also prefer that regions of null that have been under one sov control for a length of time gained npc stations to reflect the stabilty provided by the sov. This would have given more research etc lines in sov and made s&i viable. Null absolutely does not need more buffs. Of all things s&i should be a level playing field to my mind. Null already has better resources available to exploit the increased resources they have. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 09:57:00 -
[1950] - Quote
I have the feeling even if this thread goes another 90 pages and thousand upon thousand of posts, ending in a fair and realistic consensus of what the changes should be and even supporting them in a logical manner the player community understands and accepts. There will still be a huge amount of pet theories by different design aspect personal or some sort of social-engineering agenda that even an armada of ever titan in the game firing at once concentrating at the same point couldn't punch a pinhole through.
That aside this debate should be educating the less experienced, confusing some while giving clarity to others. This is common ground no matter where you locate you character. Personally, I believe discussions like this with strengthen the Eve community
Summary of my positions:
- Keep remote jobs from station office for POS work
- Keep anchoring restrictions in High-sec
- No forcing taxes, fees, surcharges to Player owned space assets anywhere*
- No social-engineering, maintaining balance in a game is one thing but to change something to specifically manipulate player base is a no-no
- Placeholder for something I've obviously forgot
*Exceptions: Fixed surcharge on "Com Traffic concept or similar" of blueprints being located a station office (prefer not, butt....) Scaling cost of lines in a player owned outposts, but ONLY if line scaling is optional and the cost is somehow reflected by some resource needed, increased draw on an auxillary power source, something like that. Definitely not some isk black hole
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1283
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 10:12:00 -
[1951] - Quote
Industry is finally getting some attention. Excellent changes so far. The Tears Must Flow |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 15:39:00 -
[1952] - Quote
Well I am bit surprised no one cares about the removal of being able to remote research and remote copy bpo's.
I think it will cripple the cap copy set business..but maybe I am wrong. Maybe those that make copies for a living will do it in stations.
At anyone time there are only 6-8 nyx copy sets available in the whole universe. Oneguy I know is going to stop..but he just does it as a side income and doesn't need the isk. And takes 2 months to make a copy..but can only list them for 2 weeks..so rough math 8 weeks divided by 2 weeks x 8 sets max listed is all of 32 people. to supply copy sets to 500,000 people. LOL don't you just love over simplification!
The only good I see in the change is not needing a high sec research pos anymore. Because I sure as hell am not going to risk putting bpo's in a pos. I mean if a bpo is cheap who makes copies anyways. Just build off the original. The whole thing of remote research is safe guarding expensive bpo's and building from copies instead of moving the originals around.
I do think if they remove the standings restriction there will be many more high sec pos's. And from an miner standpoint, that will be good as they can use them to refine and compress. But I also see being hard to find a spot to put up a pos. All the good systems already have pos's on all the moons. but eve is big and lots of moons..true..also lots of players.
I always thought it would be cool to let others research in your pos. By remote..but then can charge them a line (copy or research) fee. But I guess that will never happen.. And don't get me started on the horrible pos permissions.
They (ccp) just need to suck it up and fix pos code. remove the need to be next to a moon! |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 17:07:00 -
[1953] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:Well I am bit surprised no one cares about the removal of being able to remote research and remote copy bpo's.
Actually there has been lots of commentary on this and usually in the negative.
Quote:The only good I see in the change is not needing a high sec research pos anymore. Because I sure as hell am not going to risk putting bpo's in a pos. I mean if a bpo is cheap who makes copies anyways. Just build off the original. The whole thing of remote research is safe guarding expensive bpo's and building from copies instead of moving the originals around.
Well, it depends on the costs doesn't it. Sure, when you put your BPOs in the labs in a POS the POS could be attacked and destroyed...if you are completely foolish. You get a notification that you have been war decced. You have 24 hours to remove said BPOs before your POS can be shot. And depending on who decs you and your POS set up even that might not be a huge issue (remember in HS the POS can only be shot by sub-caps, and lots of war dec corps have a handful of people).
At the same time, if the cost of doing things in station is high enough, then the POS may start to look attractive even with the increased risks. Just remember...put some strontium in your freaking tower for the love of God.
Quote:I do think if they remove the standings restriction there will be many more high sec pos's. And from an miner standpoint, that will be good as they can use them to refine and compress. But I also see being hard to find a spot to put up a pos. All the good systems already have pos's on all the moons. but eve is big and lots of moons..true..also lots of players.
You appear to be contradicting yourself. First you tell us there will be far fewer research POS in HS...now you are saying there will be lots more POS...why? Why have a POS in HS if not for research? Moon mining? Nope, doesn't work. A safe tower for moving caps...nope, can't bring caps into HS (well okay the JF, but still you can't cyno in to HS) again, nope. Staging POS? What for?
If people start tearing down their research POS en masse as you note above then this paragraph of yours makes no sense. People might, as you say set up POS for compressing ore, but now we have two countervailing effects. Removing research POS reduces the number of POS, whereas ore compression POS increase the number of POS. Net effect? I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows.
My guess is some research POS will come down, some will remain up. Some new POS will go up for ore compression and the overall result will be there will still be lots of moons that are free. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 17:09:00 -
[1954] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Petrified wrote:I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? )? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS? Apart from that... Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably. Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'. Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also.
It is still being implemented as a per unit tax. The fact that the isk vanishes just means that the inefficiencies the line cost/tax is imposing is considerably larger than it would be if the tax were somehow spent in the EVE economy somewhere. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 17:15:00 -
[1955] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Aryth wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:Mynnna's post is informative if not entirely on-point.
I don't think anybody cares whether all industry moves to nullsec. What people care about is whether the majority of industrial profits move to nullsec. Mynnna hedges in the article about whether this will happen. We need to see the numbers from the next few dev blogs to be able to make better predictions about that. Of course. We haven't even internally decided how to do final exploitation of the new mechanics until we see all the final blogs. However, from what has been released, its clear the high margins of some types of productions are going to get compressed. by nullsec. To claim doom and gloom for highsec production though is laughable. Those of you in sweet spots like JF's are going to get creamed though. So bottom line, goons will control any high profit product, and leave the dregs for high sec . Good to know. Yeah, congrats. Well played on how you designed these changes to explicitly benefit the cartels.
Yeah, competition is so awful isn't it.
Oh wait, it usually increases output, lowers prices (and in RL often increases employment).
Obviously you are all about what is good for the EVE economy and not our own personal wallet. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2806
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 17:35:00 -
[1956] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Aryth wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:Mynnna's post is informative if not entirely on-point.
I don't think anybody cares whether all industry moves to nullsec. What people care about is whether the majority of industrial profits move to nullsec. Mynnna hedges in the article about whether this will happen. We need to see the numbers from the next few dev blogs to be able to make better predictions about that. Of course. We haven't even internally decided how to do final exploitation of the new mechanics until we see all the final blogs. However, from what has been released, its clear the high margins of some types of productions are going to get compressed. by nullsec. To claim doom and gloom for highsec production though is laughable. Those of you in sweet spots like JF's are going to get creamed though. So bottom line, goons will control any high profit product, and leave the dregs for high sec . Good to know. Yeah, congrats. Well played on how you designed these changes to explicitly benefit the cartels. Yeah, competition is so awful isn't it. Oh wait, it usually increases output, lowers prices (and in RL often increases employment). Obviously you are all about what is good for the EVE economy and not our own personal wallet.
If you think these changes are about increasing "competition" within Eve's economy, you are truly obtuse. Given the corp you are in, and the tone of your previous posts, you are more likely in full Orwell mode. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 18:16:00 -
[1957] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
If you think these changes are about increasing "competition" within Eve's economy, you are truly obtuse. Given the corp you are in, and the tone of your previous posts, you are more likely in full Orwell mode.
It is right there in the quote you pulled.
Quote:However, from what has been released, its clear the high margins of some types of productions are going to get compressed. by nullsec. To claim doom and gloom for highsec production though is laughable. Those of you in sweet spots like JF's are going to get creamed though.
Let me translate this for you:
Competition with nullsec, specifically in high marging markets, will take place because of null sec.
Then you wrote:
Quote:Well played on how you designed these changes to explicitly benefit the cartels.
Of course, you went on to say that the "cartels"--i.e. null sec alliances and coalitions--will "control" these markets. Which of course is stupid. It has already been pointed out that the slot tax will impact both NS and HS. You have asserted it wont impact null as much, but you provide nothing to support this claim.
Further, NS has a transportation/logistics issue. It is not as easy to source low ends in NS. If they are sourced in HS they still cost isk in terms of ice products (i.e. jump fuel). Also, you often have only 1 station/outpost in sov NS vs. multiple stations in HS systems.
Also, there IS increased risk in NS despite what blithering boobs like Mord Fiddle and Ripard Teg claim. If Goons or anyone else sets up a highly lucrative JF business (and are relying on POSes) then hostiles can drop dreads and supers on those POSes. That is an impossible outcome in HS. Granted it could be done in outposts, but then go back to the 1 outpost/system constraint....HS does not always have that issue.
Finally, even if NS was able to take all of a given market they cannot charge whatever price they want. They are limited by the potential competition of HS. That is, suppose Goons, in their evil and nefarious ways, manage to take the entire JF market. They cannot double or triple prices because at such a profit margin even if I have to pay a 14% cost increase to make JFs in HS I absolutely will and undercut the goon suppliers. And I'll do it on anonymous alts that they will never trace back to me....if they even care (which they probably wont).
You have had years of protected industry...now you are losing it and complaining bitterly. We get it already. You can stop. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2806
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 18:44:00 -
[1958] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
If you think these changes are about increasing "competition" within Eve's economy, you are truly obtuse. Given the corp you are in, and the tone of your previous posts, you are more likely in full Orwell mode.
It is right there in the quote you pulled. Quote:However, from what has been released, its clear the high margins of some types of productions are going to get compressed. by nullsec. To claim doom and gloom for highsec production though is laughable. Those of you in sweet spots like JF's are going to get creamed though. Let me translate this for you: Competition with nullsec, specifically in high marging markets, will take place because of null sec. Then you wrote: Quote:Well played on how you designed these changes to explicitly benefit the cartels. Of course, you went on to say that the "cartels"--i.e. null sec alliances and coalitions--will "control" these markets. Which of course is stupid. It has already been pointed out that the slot tax will impact both NS and HS. You have asserted it wont impact null as much, but you provide nothing to support this claim. Further, NS has a transportation/logistics issue. It is not as easy to source low ends in NS. If they are sourced in HS they still cost isk in terms of ice products (i.e. jump fuel). Also, you often have only 1 station/outpost in sov NS vs. multiple stations in HS systems. Also, there IS increased risk in NS despite what blithering boobs like Mord Fiddle and Ripard Teg claim. If Goons or anyone else sets up a highly lucrative JF business (and are relying on POSes) then hostiles can drop dreads and supers on those POSes. That is an impossible outcome in HS. Granted it could be done in outposts, but then go back to the 1 outpost/system constraint....HS does not always have that issue. Finally, even if NS was able to take all of a given market they cannot charge whatever price they want. They are limited by the potential competition of HS. That is, suppose Goons, in their evil and nefarious ways, manage to take the entire JF market. They cannot double or triple prices because at such a profit margin even if I have to pay a 14% cost increase to make JFs in HS I absolutely will and undercut the goon suppliers. And I'll do it on anonymous alts that they will never trace back to me....if they even care (which they probably wont). You have had years of protected industry...now you are losing it and complaining bitterly. We get it already. You can stop.
When one of the chief architects of these changes states flatly that goons will control any market they want when this is implemented, that is all I need to know about the intent of these changes.
You can pound away all day with your talk of risk and transportation costs, but we all know what the real risk level is, and transportation costs on small volume, big ticket items like DCII's will be trivial, and on large items like JF's, your advantage will be so huge cost wise that transport costs will also end up being trivial.
Further, the only people needing JF's soon will be null sec pilots bringing high value loads to declining high sec hubs and returning to null with compressed ore, or when they are jumping to emerging null sec hubs. So there won't be a market for JF's anyway, not that any high sec players will be able to afford them. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
420
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 19:09:00 -
[1959] - Quote
What concerns me is that null is increasingly boosted and given the best of everything. Eve drew me in because of the varied choices, the chance to form industry in hisec, the risk of losec, the lure of nullsec. Pushing the best of everything to null simply leaves older players no choice but to go there or be left out in the cold and in my view that simply destroys the variety that set Eve apart. If you tell those who can't invest the time needed to live in nullsec that they are second class and somehow less important than those who PvP more predominantly then the game will lose nmany players eventually.
Balance needs to be across areas and careers available as well as by risk/reward. Null has a logistics problem for S&I and low end minerals? Good, that means effort is required to build stuff there just as it is in hisec to gather up and use moon goo etc for T2 production. Points have been made about the difficulties because of low number of slots on outposts and I'll take those at face value as I cannot comment on them and am glad of the extra information. I would rather the stable regions have gained NPC stations though, and then had them mothball over periods of instability. This would have benefited those who controlled a region for longer and allowed for more expanded S&I without giving extra benefits to the most resource rich regions.
Keep marginalizing hisec and pushing out casual players and Eve will suffer. Each area should have something it can be best at to give each playstyle something to aspire to and aim for. Those groups that organize across and utilize all areas would then benefit more even than one group controlling any one area. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1280
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 19:17:00 -
[1960] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Yeah, competition is so awful isn't it. Oh wait, it usually increases output, lowers prices (and in RL often increases employment). Obviously you are all about what is good for the EVE economy and not our own personal wallet. Competition would involve equal material costs. Because of the nearly 20% refining advantage Null has, that is equivalent to a mineral discount for building in Null, meaning it's not competition, it's blatant advantage.
Null has spent years screaming that a 2% disadvantage at max skills means they can't compete with highsec, now that it's on the other foot but ten times larger it's fair. That clearly says who's eye is actually on the personal wallet. |
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 20:37:00 -
[1961] - Quote
Could someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from the mining frigate all ORE ship BPO's originate at ORE stations out in low/null and only available in the high-sec market if someone brings them there.
Also the biggest ship that can be built in High-sec POS I know for sure is the Orca, I suspect you can build Freighters either Jump or standard at the very least in a station. (I'll admit building Freighters is outside my interest so haven't vest much time on possibility of high-sec fabrication) Even if the anchoring restrictions are lifted there won't be any notable increase in there production or research. Especially if the BP has to be at the POS, it takes around 2 months to increase 1 ME or Copy a 1 run BPC, and roughly 7days to build (of course with better skills it would be less... but not much). The cost to do it at a station would be astronomical.
Currently a BPC set for an Orca can run as low as 100mil many smaller indy corps take that route when first starting to scale up or team building project. Or 900mil to 1.7bil isk just for the Orca BPO itself plus about 500mil to 1 bill per subcomponet BPO. I've used the Orca as an example because of interconnection of null to high in its acquisition and production cycle.
Granted I don't see every small or medium size corp even wanting to build Orcas regularly or even at all especially with BPO's it would be too much isk to tie up in a specific single (or grouped) asset. This is one of the common big cases where risk assessment would limit it to significantly large corporations to have a standing defense to provide the BPC market which smaller corps usually are the main consumers before some venture into the investment to produce their own BPC's for sale fueling competition.
I say no to POS taxing/charges, I say no to decentralizing and removal to BP remote from station work, I say no to forcing player station/outposts to behave like NPC equivalents and into thin air isk charges associated.
That last bit sounded like I was running for office So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Davethethird
Kayama Technology
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 00:34:00 -
[1962] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Davethethird wrote: If you haven't already, please could you consider adding a "Deliver All Automatically" button to inventions etc. I'm not really interested in knowing how many jobs have failed or succeeded (If I want to know that I could choose to deliver manually) this is an intensive waste of time to have me clicking the deliver button 11 times per toon I am running invention jobs with etc. Please sort that out.
Hold down shift, click the first and the last one (so you select all of them) then hit deliver. Just keep tapping enter until the failed/succeeded windows stop popping up. If you run your own personal altcorp you can install for corp and deliver all of your alt jobs at once using this method.
Thanks for the reply, I am well aware of how to deliver jobs having done this for some time, what I actually want is a deliver all button that means I don't have to keep spamming the enter button that would be great and to be honest, in a game which tries to emulate reality in an unreal universe (oops, did I really say that, it is real... honest) then you would think that with all this technology, that we wouldn't need to be so manual and have to spam delivery buttons, surely any self respecting designer would have given us the option of manual vs auto!!!
I would rather not waste my time doing the needless points of indy, I want to waste the time killing and/or losing ships. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 01:59:00 -
[1963] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
When one of the chief architects of these changes states flatly that goons will control any market they want when this is implemented, that is all I need to know about the intent of these changes.
Oh where has he stated that?
And just because he says it does not make it true. I could say you are a turnip...are you really a turnip?
Quote:You can pound away all day with your talk of risk and transportation costs, but we all know what the real risk level is, and transportation costs on small volume, big ticket items like DCII's will be trivial, and on large items like JF's, your advantage will be so huge cost wise that transport costs will also end up being trivial.
The cost is non-trivial (= 0). That is what trivial means.
You keep making bald faced statements without any support. How huge is the cost advantage for null? What about this change will make it huge?
Frankly, I think you are being completely dishonest here. You have yet to back up any statement I have seen by you with even the barest facts. Instead you rely on assumptions, speculation and out right nonsense.
Quote:Further, the only people needing JF's soon will be null sec pilots bringing high value loads to declining high sec hubs and returning to null with compressed ore, or when they are jumping to emerging null sec hubs. So there won't be a market for JF's anyway, not that any high sec players will be able to afford them.
So you really do think these changes will result in a death spiral for the EVE economy?
Histrionics much? |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 02:15:00 -
[1964] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:Could someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from the mining frigate all ORE ship BPO's originate at ORE stations out in low/null and only available in the high-sec market if someone brings them there.
Yes.
Quote:Also the biggest ship that can be built in High-sec POS I know for sure is the Orca, I suspect you can build Freighters either Jump or standard at the very least in a station. (I'll admit building Freighters is outside my interest so haven't vest much time on possibility of high-sec fabrication) Even if the anchoring restrictions are lifted there won't be any notable increase in there production or research. Especially if the BP has to be at the POS, it takes around 2 months to increase 1 ME or Copy a 1 run BPC, and roughly 7days to build (of course with better skills it would be less... but not much). The cost to do it at a station would be astronomical.
I really am amazed at how fearful some HS industry types are. Its amazing you even undock. Seriously what is the risk of having the BPO in the POS? A war dec? You have 24 hours to get out there and get it safe.
Yeah, you could be ganked doing that, but geez, undock a few alts and it isn't like somebody is going to bubble the station. A couple of insta docking book marks on the station and you should be fine. Play smarter, not like a wuss.
Quote:Granted I don't see every small or medium size corp even wanting to build Orcas regularly or even at all especially with BPO's it would be too much isk to tie up in a specific single (or grouped) asset. This is one of the common big cases where risk assessment would limit it to significantly large corporations to have a standing defense to provide the BPC market which smaller corps usually are the main consumers before some venture into the investment to produce their own BPC's for sale fueling competition.
I'm pretty sure you can build a freighter or even a JF in a station at the moment. You really are trying to get your panites in a knot, but some research on what you can and can't do in station might be a good idea. Unless the proposed changes that ships like a freighter must be built in an x-large ship assembly array is part of the changes you are getting worked up about not much.
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 02:26:00 -
[1965] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Yeah, competition is so awful isn't it. Oh wait, it usually increases output, lowers prices (and in RL often increases employment). Obviously you are all about what is good for the EVE economy and not our own personal wallet. Competition would involve equal material costs. Because of the nearly 20% refining advantage Null has, that is equivalent to a mineral discount for building in Null, meaning it's not competition, it's blatant advantage. Null has spent years screaming that a 2% disadvantage at max skills means they can't compete with highsec, now that it's on the other foot but ten times larger it's fair. That clearly says who's eye is actually on the personal wallet.
It wasn't just the 2% advantage that HS had. The ubiquity of slots and stations, even in a single system. The safety for things like a well set up POS. Close proximity to major trade hubs (i.e. HS transportation costs and logistics are stupid easy and safe if you know what you are doing).
And null always had the POS fuel advantage that nullified the mining advantage (the differential between running a large POS in HS vs. NS is at least 100 million isk.
None of this even changes really. You'll still have stations (for which you wont have to pay sov bills), CONCORD, close proximity to trade hubs, and so forth. Now null will have an advantage in refining...big whooop. What are they going to do take over the ship building industries? GMAFB |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
405
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 02:54:00 -
[1966] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:I really am amazed at how fearful some HS industry types are. Its amazing you even undock. Seriously what is the risk of having the BPO in the POS? A war dec? You have 24 hours to get out there and get it safe. It has nothing to do with fear.
The problem is that, if you cancel a job in progress, you get nothing and end up wasting time/resources. If an ME job was running for the past two weeks, with 2 days left, and you need to cancel it because of a wardec, you lose two weeks worth of effort & fuel. And, if you were doing a manufacturing job, you lose the materials, too.
This is not efficient, esp. since it is likely that every high-sec POS with a couple of labs attached will now become a wardec target, in hopes of popping a BPO-filled pinata. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7067
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 03:06:00 -
[1967] - Quote
Do bpos drop if they're in research? Components don't drop from in-build manufacturing jobs, so I suspect bpos will not either. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
405
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 03:08:00 -
[1968] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Do bpos drop if they're in research? Components don't drop from in-build manufacturing jobs, so I suspect bpos will not either. Good question. But, components are consumed by the jobs, even if cancelled, whereas the BPOs are not. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 03:26:00 -
[1969] - Quote
Hmm... Generalizations and assumptions weaken the merit of an argument.
A degree of risk adversion is logical, sane, and prudent. To what degree varies person to person and group to group, but any risk that is without appropriate reward lacks enough merit to justify itself. Much in the same vein locations that are more "free" have lower expectations of security due the associated benefit of that freedom.
I form my arguments in line with neutrality to location not centered on my own play style, particularly in this thread. The argument against removing remote from station POS work stems from how I perceive the mechanics involved. As I've stated before I view blueprints much more akin to DRM items. In that regard an actual interaction with the physical item need be required. The blueprint original or copy is as described a licensed set of instructs and methodologies. Research improves the methodologies hence making the instruction commands more efficient in either time or waste. Manufacturing as well need not directly need the physical interaction with the data set and instructions just a method of getting the constructs to the apparatus implementing them. Even if we go with the supposition that BPC's decay physically due to consumption of a licensed run it still need not physical interaction at the apparatus level.
Arguments I've made against lifting the restriction on anchoring starbases in high-sec is reflection of basic territorial security concerns. Just as sovereign player territories can dictate who and what can be in their systems it is reasonable and balanced to expect NPC space to act in much the same manner. Groups wanting to use the privileged space of null, low or even high must comply with respect with the sovereign of that territory then to the power bloc groups operating inside the sovereigns territory. It is a fair, logical, and universally applicable premise.
Another of my argument has been against taxes, charges or fees on any player owned structure without clearly defined and applicable reason. The ability of of a NPC corp to scale its facilities with subsequent additional costs need not nor should be forced upon starbase facilities. Additionally player outposts should be able to elect to implement that feature or not. If the owner has chosen to use said ability, the reason for the cost and where it goes and how should be defined.
All in all, a well rounded unbiased set of arguments with no hidden agenda.
In postscript I would like to apologize particularly for the very specific and uncommon terms used especially the individual who speak english as a second language. The reason was to reduce ambiguity, I do not feel that I am any better or worse than another nor wish to be seen as an elitist.
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 03:58:00 -
[1970] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:I really am amazed at how fearful some HS industry types are. Its amazing you even undock. Seriously what is the risk of having the BPO in the POS? A war dec? You have 24 hours to get out there and get it safe. It has nothing to do with fear. The problem is that, if you cancel a job in progress, you get nothing and end up wasting time/resources. If an ME job was running for the past two weeks, with 2 days left, and you need to cancel it because of a wardec, you lose two weeks worth of effort & fuel. And, if you were doing a manufacturing job, you lose the materials, too. This is not efficient, esp. since it is likely that every high-sec POS with a couple of labs attached will now become a wardec target, in hopes of popping a BPO-filled pinata.
Jesus, do you understand the concept of sunk costs?
FFS.... |
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
405
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 05:02:00 -
[1971] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Jesus, do you understand the concept of sunk costs? FFS.... Probably far better than you do.
But, please, rather than throw out insults, feel free to explain your position more clearly, so that everyone else can understand how this applies to POS-based research and manufacturing in EVE, when under perpetual threat of a wardec. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 05:20:00 -
[1972] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Jesus, do you understand the concept of sunk costs? FFS.... Probably far better than you do. But, please, rather than throw out insults, feel free to explain your position more clearly, so that everyone else can understand how this applies to POS-based research and manufacturing in EVE, when under perpetual threat of a wardec.
Once you start a job, the costs are sunk...i.e. they are unrecoverable.
If you are letting those costs still influence your behavior then you are being irrational. Once costs are sunk they should no longer have any impact on your decisions.
So, forgive, but it seems you don't know anything about sunk costs.
And going forward you don't have to use a POS...for anything. You are assuming that using a station is going to be more expensive than using a POS. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
14
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 06:39:00 -
[1973] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
Once you start a job, the costs are sunk...i.e. they are unrecoverable.
If you are letting those costs still influence your behavior then you are being irrational. Once costs are sunk they should no longer have any impact on your decisions.
So, forgive, but it seems you don't know anything about sunk costs.
And going forward you don't have to use a POS...for anything. You are assuming that using a station is going to be more expensive than using a POS.
I can't and won't even try to refute economic theory. However only a small percentage of players, likely very small, even care about macro-economics, most are not much more interested in economics other than not taking a loss while being engaged and entertained. At it's foundation Eve is a game, a very diverse, feature rich, quasi simulation of a hypothetical future. The physics engine isn't even remotely close to known laws or theorized possibilities. The simplification is required to make it an enjoyable game. Precision in the simulation of various aspects would make Eve frustrating to the point of death by account attrition. The use of real world parallels only work in aspects to set the game universe in easily understandable framework, otherwise it would be far too alien for the general public. Eve makes you think and diverts a person's attention from issues that daily stress.
The simple fact is player's shouldn't and don't need to micromanage everything, so if a player runs their jobs at a POS, Station, Outpost or by some weird alignment of space time the laundry service of their ship the cost in material and time is already understood and accepted. If a single player corp has the the individual go offline for that annoying experience called the real world, they have their jobs set, POS fueled for a reasonable duration and the corp gets a war-declaration and subsequent burning of the POS to a cinder, the associated loss of structures, product, and materials pale in comparison to the emotional impact of a player who had spent significant time and isk to acquire blueprints especially hard to get originals or faction copies.
Playing Eve is not more important than real life concerns, a job, or relationships. Anyone who would think that really needs to seek some mental health help (I'm not being specific to any one person). Additionally in a game, perception is reality, no matter unfounded it may seem.
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1287
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 07:21:00 -
[1974] - Quote
If you're not willing to fight for what you have in EvE, you don't deserve it, and you will lose it. The Tears Must Flow |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
405
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 09:27:00 -
[1975] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Once you start a job, the costs are sunk...i.e. they are unrecoverable.
If you are letting those costs still influence your behavior then you are being irrational. Once costs are sunk they should no longer have any impact on your decisions.
So, forgive, but it seems you don't know anything about sunk costs. lol... right from the Business 101 freshman course on Microeconomics. No point in arguing why you are wrong - you'll need a few years of actual business experience to understand how, and why, people actually decide to make such decisions.
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:And going forward you don't have to use a POS...for anything. You are assuming that using a station is going to be more expensive than using a POS. You are arguing against yourself.
Your accusation was that HS industry folks are too fearful to put a BPO in a POS. I stated that this behavior isn't motivated by fear, but by simple risk/cost analysis against using a POS, in a situation where you can be wardec'ced.
You are now arguing that HS industry folks don't need to use a POS.
And, I made no assumption about whether it is more expensive to use a POS or a NPC station. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
422
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 09:32:00 -
[1976] - Quote
agree entirely with this, the there shouldn't only be consideration for rosk reward balance. Game balance is equally important in terms of all playstyles being catered for. Saying that casual playstyles are catered for in hisec industry will become akin to saying casual players can only aspire to be 2nd class industrialists if hisec is nerfed in theis area and nullsec continually buffed. We have yet to see exactly what these changes will mean but disenfranchising a large group of the playing community can only be bad.
Hisec is already low risk/reward with regards to industry, those who make large sums are either importing large amounts of high value goods from lopsec thus creating the market, or investing large sums of isk on low % return projects. So what if some players make large sum from trading or any other hisec means. This gives other hisec [players something to aspire to and is the ultimate low entry skill career. Anyone can buy and sell goods.
If people want the benefits of hisec industry stability they should use a hisec alt (as many have already said they do). The logistics problem of moving stuff to and from null is just that, a problem to be solved (which already must have been for null sector folks to be making isk from moongoo and returning hisec stuff back. Why then should this be made easier by moving S&I benefits to losec? I thought the point was that people should move across areas, run differentcareer paths in and through different regions?
Hisec needs something that casual and/or constructive ploayers can excel in, losec needs some attention to give it more allure, null already has the opportunitiy to carve out your own chunk of space along with all of the best resources excewpt for a few of the low end goods that need importing from hisec (which is a good thing).
Game balance in my opinion is more important than the risk/reward balance. The latter can be tweaked by amending resource amounts produced, loot drops, exploration drops etc. The former is far more difficult to fix if you break it.
|
Maki Nomiya
ACME HARDWARE
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 14:15:00 -
[1977] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: (edit)
We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station.
As long as it's the right already overly congested station
Presently we can have them in an Office in a station that doesn't have slots and do all this with our POS ... lower cost (well used to be till POS fuel went up in price !) and a bit faster.
Now if we still want to use the POS we have to risk additional Billions of investment in the BPOs and stick them out there in space.
Sounds just like something corporates that invest time and money in risk mitigation would go and do
Maybe you should first revisit POS setups and give us a little more of a chance to even try and protect assets in so called "High Sec" against the usual 20 to 1 battles that usually come with war-decs when POSes are concerned first.
It's not a case of no risk as we still have to move the BPCs about and if it's manufacturing or researching stuff can be lost in a POS attack already.
Other changes I think you all have done a lot more thinking on and will be eagerly awaited. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 15:22:00 -
[1978] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Once you start a job, the costs are sunk...i.e. they are unrecoverable.
If you are letting those costs still influence your behavior then you are being irrational. Once costs are sunk they should no longer have any impact on your decisions.
So, forgive, but it seems you don't know anything about sunk costs. lol... right from the Business 101 freshman course on Microeconomics. No point in arguing why you are wrong - you'll need a few years of actual business experience to understand how, and why, people actually decide to make such decisions.
Making a decision on whether or not to "sink" those costs is different than once the costs are sunk. If you think leaving the BPO in there is a good idea (i.e. when there is a good chance of losing the POS and the BPO) so you can "recover" the costs, that is foolish.
Further, people have been complaining that the new changes means that their BPOs are at risk. They are, but the risk can be managed.
Right now, all those losses you note are still risks people take when they put up POS, start doing S&I stuff and then get decced. Even if the BPO is locked down. People still do that stuff though. Or is it different when you lock down a BPO and work remotely?
Sizeof Void wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:And going forward you don't have to use a POS...for anything. You are assuming that using a station is going to be more expensive than using a POS. You are arguing against yourself. Your accusation was that HS industry folks are too fearful to put a BPO in a POS. I stated that this behavior isn't motivated by fear, but by simple risk/cost analysis against using a POS, in a situation where you can be wardec'ced. You are now arguing that HS industry folks don't need to use a POS. And, I made no assumption about whether it is more expensive to use a POS or a NPC station.
It is also a solution to the war dec problem if the risk is perceived to be too great. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 15:23:00 -
[1979] - Quote
Maki Nomiya wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: (edit)
We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station. As long as it's the right already overly congested station
Yeah moving your operations is not an option. |
Minnie Layser
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 15:37:00 -
[1980] - Quote
Reactivated my two accounts a couple months basically because I thought the ORE frigate was cool, and specialized cargo holds were cool.
Such utter stupidity here... It's like changing the art on ships that already look cool, but not ships that are ugly (brought to you by the same cleverness of the loot spew mechanic, perhaps?). Look - you might as well do whatever you want devs, (or whatever you convinced your manager was worth doing and that it would require so many)
because I'm not re-upping, even if you don't implement these changes, which for the most part won't matter to me,
they are indicative of the sort of mindset that tells me where this game is not going (your 3 directives about industry look to be from someone's 'clever' powerpoint in a meeting of developers and managers rather than indicative of any insight into the enjoyment of the game by players who engage in these activities primarily.) Fixing bad ideas with bad ideas is, well... I mean I think it's a bad idea. It smells of committees.
and to the Goons - grats - woulda joined back in the day but didn't want to pay money to join the somethingawful forum (free plug). |
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 16:02:00 -
[1981] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
Once you start a job, the costs are sunk...i.e. they are unrecoverable.
If you are letting those costs still influence your behavior then you are being irrational. Once costs are sunk they should no longer have any impact on your decisions.
So, forgive, but it seems you don't know anything about sunk costs.
And going forward you don't have to use a POS...for anything. You are assuming that using a station is going to be more expensive than using a POS.
I can't and won't even try to refute economic theory. However only a small percentage of players, likely very small, even care about macro-economics, most are not much more interested in economics other than not taking a loss while being engaged and entertained. At it's foundation Eve is a game, a very diverse, feature rich, quasi simulation of a hypothetical future. The physics engine isn't even remotely close to known laws or theorized possibilities. The simplification is required to make it an enjoyable game. Precision in the simulation of various aspects would make Eve frustrating to the point of death by account attrition. The use of real world parallels only work in aspects to set the game universe in easily understandable framework, otherwise it would be far too alien for the general public. Eve makes you think and diverts a person's attention from issues that daily stress. The simple fact is player's shouldn't and don't need to micromanage everything, so if a player runs their jobs at a POS, Station, Outpost or by some weird alignment of space time the laundry service of their ship the cost in material and time is already understood and accepted. If a single player corp has the the individual go offline for that annoying experience called the real world, they have their jobs set, POS fueled for a reasonable duration and the corp gets a war-declaration and subsequent burning of the POS to a cinder, the associated loss of structures, product, and materials pale in comparison to the emotional impact of a player who had spent significant time and isk to acquire blueprints especially hard to get originals or faction copies. Playing Eve is not more important than real life concerns, a job, or relationships. Anyone who would think that really needs to seek some mental health help (I'm not being specific to any one person). Additionally in a game, perception is reality, no matter unfounded it may seem.
This is exactly the kind of thing that economists do when setting up lab experiments. Yes, they are simplifications, but they still provide lots of potentially useful information on how markets work. And the great thing is in the MMOs with very developed economies...the participants pay to play. EVE is perhaps the best one in this regard and frankly I'm surprised more economists are not looking at it to test theories. If I were a young grad student I'd be trying to find a way to use such data.
My point is, that the theories of economics do not stop just because EVE is a game. In fact, EVE may be one place to study them in detail because of the simplifications.
For example, Price convergence in an online virtual world. One of the predictions of neoclassical economics is that when you have a market with a homogeneous good and many buyers and sellers there will be "one price" even in different locations. Some key assumptions are no transportation costs and no economic barriers between locations. The researchers used WoW where ganking is not really a factor. It would be interesting to see what the research would say when applied to the New Eden economy.
One thing is that ganking freighters may actually be what helps create the price differences that many players take advantage of and make isk.
So if you are making isk by doing arbitrage (buying low in one region and selling high in another) don't complain about those gank squads...they may be the very reason you have a profit. Just play smart and find ways to avoid them and enjoy your isk.
Amusingly making ganking harder could actually reduce the profitability of this in game profession...careful what you ask for. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
406
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 19:14:00 -
[1982] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Right now, all those losses you note are still risks people take when they put up POS, start doing S&I stuff and then get decced. Even if the BPO is locked down. People still do that stuff though. Or is it different when you lock down a BPO and work remotely? Yes, it is very different when you work remotely, for two reasons:
1) The BPOs are not at risk. If you lose the POS, you lose a couple hundred million ISK in labs, not billions.
And, yes, there are cases where risking the POS is acceptable. If you are researching capital BPOs, for example, which requires 2-3 months to grind a single ME level, taking the risk on losing the POS is sometimes reasonable, depending on the likelihood of your attackers to kill the POS. But, this is certainly not the case if you need to put the BPOs in the POS.
2) Potential attackers know that the BPOs are NOT in the POS, so the risk of a random wardec is actually much lower.
POS bashing is high-sec is *very* tedious and has to be worth the tears (not to mention the wardec fee). |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 20:34:00 -
[1983] - Quote
The argument that I make against blueprints being force into starbase structures to be used relies more on logistical and unneeded complexity issues with a dash of lore supportable real life parallels to reinforce the concept.
Individuals who contributed other reasons for the same only add to the points why it is undesirable, just as mine reinforces theirs. Blanket statements to refute the arguments combined invalidate themselves.
Other statements about fears and loss avoidance crippling individuals or groups from pursuing opportunities fail to take into account the context of mine and similar arguments. To propose a change to copy production location would be the only valid instance to support such claims in regards to the blueprint location. However in this thread on this specific topic it hasn't been suggested. Space borne assets are at risk irregardless, POCO and starbases are attacked and destroyed even in high-sec on regular basis and their contents are subject to loss. This is a natural and proper process as it serves the true purpose of war especially in regards to attrition, retaliation, and expansion.
Losing materials, structures, and product is a risk that all but the under informed or naive know and accept and would fall under the pretext of if you can't defend it you lose it, the act of deserving something is irrelevant.
Equating freighter ganking in the same context isn't valid, also I would like to point out that the threat could be mitigated with combat escorts and scouts if desired to truly reduce losses from acts of piracy. (note I didn't say end piracy)
Forming your point or counter point in a discussion/debate solely on either an over intellectualized of economic modeling or over simplified "Kill or Die" stance both ignore the fact to be able to play in your particular style or observe and interact with a reactive market model for study and analysis requires all the varied and individual shades and styles between. Doing so makes the model static and moot also predator without prey turn upon themselves ultimately leaving on a few left that in life would starve and in game would so grow bored.
As an after thought, anyone who has ever used the locking mechanics would know using it is not a quick on and off process it requires a vote to lock and unlock. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
233
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 01:52:00 -
[1984] - Quote
Absolutely late, and I don't know if the devs are still monitoring this thread, but
With the changes to POS which force/encourage people to put their valuables inside the POS itself, I assume one of the desired goals is to see more blown up (or at least attacked, defended, glorious player content etc).
Which is great, except...
POS structures do not display their contents when destroyed. Only the SMA does. If I destroy a lab containing a T2 BPO, I want to know. A 50% roll of the die says I won't know.
So CCP, would you please fix POS killmails? |
Geezelbub
Barely Illegal
9
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 02:07:00 -
[1985] - Quote
[quote=Loraine Gess]I am a Kill mail HO[quote]
While we are at it....Riddle me this....
Why does a POS Battery, with all the huge electronics suite possible, have the lock time of a Jammed Freighter?
Just wanna help with your Kill Mails! |
Flash Phoenix
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 02:57:00 -
[1986] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Flay Nardieu wrote:Could someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from the mining frigate all ORE ship BPO's originate at ORE stations out in low/null and only available in the high-sec market if someone brings them there. Yes. Quote:Also the biggest ship that can be built in High-sec POS I know for sure is the Orca, I suspect you can build Freighters either Jump or standard at the very least in a station. (I'll admit building Freighters is outside my interest so haven't vest much time on possibility of high-sec fabrication) Even if the anchoring restrictions are lifted there won't be any notable increase in there production or research. Especially if the BP has to be at the POS, it takes around 2 months to increase 1 ME or Copy a 1 run BPC, and roughly 7days to build (of course with better skills it would be less... but not much). The cost to do it at a station would be astronomical. I really am amazed at how fearful some HS industry types are. Its amazing you even undock. Seriously what is the risk of having the BPO in the POS? A war dec? You have 24 hours to get out there and get it safe. Yeah, you could be ganked doing that, but geez, undock a few alts and it isn't like somebody is going to bubble the station. A couple of insta docking book marks on the station and you should be fine. Play smarter, not like a wuss. Quote:Granted I don't see every small or medium size corp even wanting to build Orcas regularly or even at all especially with BPO's it would be too much isk to tie up in a specific single (or grouped) asset. This is one of the common big cases where risk assessment would limit it to significantly large corporations to have a standing defense to provide the BPC market which smaller corps usually are the main consumers before some venture into the investment to produce their own BPC's for sale fueling competition. I'm pretty sure you can build a freighter or even a JF in a station at the moment. You really are trying to get your panites in a knot, but some research on what you can and can't do in station might be a good idea. Unless the proposed changes that ships like a freighter must be built in an x-large ship assembly array is part of the changes you are getting worked up about not much.
About that play smarter part, sure you can cancel the job and get your bpo back, If its being researched and you get your BPO out you likely loose a lot of research time. Guess than can be a big deal or not. If its a manufacture job then you loose all of your materials and the build times of the components. Now we are talking some serous isk for most any toon in the game, got any idea how many successful sells you need to make to get back the material loss of one orca job ? Not sure who is wearing the "panites" so I will not even get into the "wuss" aspects of high sec so called PvP corps placing a wardec on a bunch of miners or manufactures to pop a POS.
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 04:44:00 -
[1987] - Quote
Flash Phoenix wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Flay Nardieu wrote:Could someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from the mining frigate all ORE ship BPO's originate at ORE stations out in low/null and only available in the high-sec market if someone brings them there. Yes. Quote:Also the biggest ship that can be built in High-sec POS I know for sure is the Orca, I suspect you can build Freighters either Jump or standard at the very least in a station. (I'll admit building Freighters is outside my interest so haven't vest much time on possibility of high-sec fabrication) Even if the anchoring restrictions are lifted there won't be any notable increase in there production or research. Especially if the BP has to be at the POS, it takes around 2 months to increase 1 ME or Copy a 1 run BPC, and roughly 7days to build (of course with better skills it would be less... but not much). The cost to do it at a station would be astronomical. I really am amazed at how fearful some HS industry types are. Its amazing you even undock. Seriously what is the risk of having the BPO in the POS? A war dec? You have 24 hours to get out there and get it safe. Yeah, you could be ganked doing that, but geez, undock a few alts and it isn't like somebody is going to bubble the station. A couple of insta docking book marks on the station and you should be fine. Play smarter, not like a wuss. Quote:Granted I don't see every small or medium size corp even wanting to build Orcas regularly or even at all especially with BPO's it would be too much isk to tie up in a specific single (or grouped) asset. This is one of the common big cases where risk assessment would limit it to significantly large corporations to have a standing defense to provide the BPC market which smaller corps usually are the main consumers before some venture into the investment to produce their own BPC's for sale fueling competition. I'm pretty sure you can build a freighter or even a JF in a station at the moment. You really are trying to get your panites in a knot, but some research on what you can and can't do in station might be a good idea. Unless the proposed changes that ships like a freighter must be built in an x-large ship assembly array is part of the changes you are getting worked up about not much. About that play smarter part, sure you can cancel the job and get your bpo back, If its being researched and you get your BPO out you likely loose a lot of research time. Guess than can be a big deal or not. If its a manufacture job then you loose all of your materials and the build times of the components. Now we are talking some serous isk for most any toon in the game, got any idea how many successful sells you need to make to get back the material loss of one orca job ? Not sure who is wearing the "panites" so I will not even get into the "wuss" aspects of high sec so called PvP corps placing a wardec on a bunch of miners or manufactures to pop a POS.
Sure but better than losing the manufacturing materials AND the BPO.
Your bigger problem will be if NS alliances decide to dec you/industry guys to make your lives harder and slow you down so that they can capture a larger share of the market.
HS war dec corps are mostly...meh...
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 06:03:00 -
[1988] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Flash Phoenix wrote:
About that play smarter part, sure you can cancel the job and get your bpo back, If its being researched and you get your BPO out you likely loose a lot of research time. Guess than can be a big deal or not. If its a manufacture job then you loose all of your materials and the build times of the components. Now we are talking some serous isk for most any toon in the game, got any idea how many successful sells you need to make to get back the material loss of one orca job ? Not sure who is wearing the "panites" so I will not even get into the "wuss" aspects of high sec so called PvP corps placing a wardec on a bunch of miners or manufactures to pop a POS.
Sure but better than losing the manufacturing materials AND the BPO. Your bigger problem will be if NS alliances decide to dec you/industry guys to make your lives harder and slow you down so that they can capture a larger share of the market. HS war dec corps are mostly...meh...
Quote management needs an overhaul
Thank you Flash for pointing out the existing risk, I glossd over that part and you probably made the point better than I could, definitely in context of my quoted post removed from the quote chain.
In regards to commentary made by Kun'ii
There has been an increase of very capable PvP mercenary High-sec corps since the POCO in high was introduced. Their interest in taking out space based assets would shift from the undefended POCO to more actively engaging an armed POS. The operational premise of such groups is the pursuit of war on a contractual basis to either destroy assets or hamper productivity. That is a much more present, viable, and likely threat. That minority which is growing in numbers is a threat greater than the rest of the majority of high-sec war to be annoying groups combined, and with reasonable risk-assessment more than bulk of null-sec corps and alliances who could only use a subset of their member base and change from accustomed strategies.
The groups that practice the art of war seriously in high-sec have done so in the confines of a restricted system forcing greater proficiency to compensate for less flexibility. Dismissing them lightly is to be either under informed or foolish. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 07:18:00 -
[1989] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Flash Phoenix wrote:
About that play smarter part, sure you can cancel the job and get your bpo back, If its being researched and you get your BPO out you likely loose a lot of research time. Guess than can be a big deal or not. If its a manufacture job then you loose all of your materials and the build times of the components. Now we are talking some serous isk for most any toon in the game, got any idea how many successful sells you need to make to get back the material loss of one orca job ? Not sure who is wearing the "panites" so I will not even get into the "wuss" aspects of high sec so called PvP corps placing a wardec on a bunch of miners or manufactures to pop a POS.
Sure but better than losing the manufacturing materials AND the BPO. Your bigger problem will be if NS alliances decide to dec you/industry guys to make your lives harder and slow you down so that they can capture a larger share of the market. HS war dec corps are mostly...meh... Quote management needs an overhaul Thank you Flash for pointing out the existing risk, I glossd over that part and you probably made the point better than I could, definitely in context of my quoted post removed from the quote chain. In regards to commentary made by Kun'ii There has been an increase of very capable PvP mercenary High-sec corps since the POCO in high was introduced. Their interest in taking out space based assets would shift from the undefended POCO to more actively engaging an armed POS. The operational premise of such groups is the pursuit of war on a contractual basis to either destroy assets or hamper productivity. That is a much more present, viable, and likely threat. That minority which is growing in numbers is a threat greater than the rest of the majority of high-sec war to be annoying groups combined, and with reasonable risk-assessment more than bulk of null-sec corps and alliances who could only use a subset of their member base and change from accustomed strategies. The groups that practice the art of war seriously in high-sec have done so in the confines of a restricted system forcing greater proficiency to compensate for less flexibility. Dismissing them lightly is to be either under informed or foolish.
Taking out a POCO vs. a HS dickstar are two very different things.
Even with a full fleet taking down a dickstar is going to be tedious work. And since hitting a HS research POS will produce a fight with probability 0, I doubt you have much to worry about beyond your hypotheticals.
|
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 09:14:00 -
[1990] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Taking out a POCO vs. a HS dickstar are two very different things.
Even with a full fleet taking down a dickstar is going to be tedious work. And since hitting a HS research POS will produce a fight with probability 0, I doubt you have much to worry about beyond your hypotheticals.
I've never even considered trying to anchor a male exotic dancer let alone male known for their work in the sex industry in space..
Levity aside for deliberate error in term meant to insult high-sec POS operators. Such comments lend one to believe that arguments previously made whether or not based on valid premises are originated from prejudice, contempt and/or ignorance. Market speculation and threat assessment are both based on hypothetical scenarios and projections.
As much as I enjoy the debate, it is apparent that it will degenerate further serving only to further under cut the validity of your arguments and force me to convey ideas in a public forum to degree of precision that is more suited to a technical paper or legal brief. So I concede to the fact I can no longer offer a debate with you within the limits of what I find tolerable in perception of arrogance, elitism, and pretension, in my posts. Although no one has voiced that opinion yet many may already have it and further posts at this degree verbal complexity would add more and reinforce such misunderstanding.
Anyway hopefully we as community get some feedback from Devs soon, there is very little left to debate constructively. With luck I can go back to more casual toned posts that are easier to understand. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:02:00 -
[1991] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:Kun'ii Zenya wrote: Taking out a POCO vs. a HS dickstar are two very different things.
Even with a full fleet taking down a dickstar is going to be tedious work. And since hitting a HS research POS will produce a fight with probability 0, I doubt you have much to worry about beyond your hypotheticals.
I've never even considered trying to anchor a male exotic dancer let alone male known for their work in the sex industry in space.. Levity aside for deliberate error in term meant to insult high-sec POS operators. Such comments lend one to believe that arguments previously made whether or not based on valid premises are originated from prejudice, contempt and/or ignorance. Market speculation and threat assessment are both based on hypothetical scenarios and projections. As much as I enjoy the debate, it is apparent that it will degenerate further serving only to further under cut the validity of your arguments and force me to convey ideas in a public forum to degree of precision that is more suited to a technical paper or legal brief. So I concede to the fact I can no longer offer a debate with you within the limits of what I find tolerable in perception of arrogance, elitism, and pretension, in my posts. Although no one has voiced that opinion yet many may already have it and further posts at this degree verbal complexity would add more and reinforce such misunderstanding. Anyway hopefully we as community get some feedback from Devs soon, there is very little left to debate constructively. With luck I can go back to more casual toned posts that are easier to understand.
Levity....a dickstar is a thing in the game. It is a POS with a load of hardeners. The idea is to make the POS shoot very long and tedious, especially if you are doing it with sub caps.
A large POS in HS with enough hardeners will be very hard to take down except for the largest fleets since dropping dreads or supers is not an option.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3381
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:58:00 -
[1992] - 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.
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: 0.4 (was 0.5)
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
457
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:02:00 -
[1993] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Another update. Hyasyoda mobile labs:
Time multiplier for invention: 0.4 (was 0.5) [/list] Kerblammo!
This time multiplier is equivalent to a Tier 3 Caldari Outpost upgrade. That's an additional 40b we don't have to spend while upgrading our space, so thanks for that. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3381
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:05:00 -
[1994] - Quote
Querns wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Another update. Hyasyoda mobile labs:
- Time multiplier for invention: 0.4 (was 0.5)
Kerblammo! This time multiplier is equivalent to a Tier 3 Caldari Outpost upgrade. That's an additional 40b we don't have to spend while upgrading our space, so thanks for that.
Arrrrgg
DELETE ALL THE OUTPOSTS!
More seriously: will balance time on Hyasoyda lab for that not to happen. Probably tune it down to 0.43 or leave it at 0.45. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1355
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:06:00 -
[1995] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4527178#post4527178
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4527281#post4527281
:) GRRR Goons |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7150
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:08:00 -
[1996] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We are considering increasing cargohold on Assembly Arrays, more updates as we get them. oh god yes, please please please
it's the small ones (component, probably ammo, other ones like that) that badly need extra space - larger ship ones don't (and are sometimes used as larger storage hangars). Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:10:00 -
[1997] - Quote
Darn -- I was seriously thanking you for reducing our outpost upgrade costs :V
But yeah, that is a good idea. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Valterra Craven
209
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:12:00 -
[1998] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We are considering increasing cargohold on Assembly Arrays, more updates as we get them. oh god yes, please please please it's the small ones (component, probably ammo, other ones like that) that badly need extra space - larger ship ones don't (and are sometimes used as larger storage hangars).
I never understood the reasoning behind all this in the first. in Real Life assembly arrays don't store materials or finished products, they get them from storage and put them there.
Personally I think you should make hanger arrays massive and remove storage from all the other facilities, that way things can be stored and managed from one spot... |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1355
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:15:00 -
[1999] - Quote
Quote:I never understood the reasoning behind all this in the first. in Real Life assembly arrays don't store materials or finished products, they get them from storage and put them there.
Personally I think you should make hanger arrays massive and remove storage from all the other facilities, that way things can be stored and managed from one spot...
the POS code does a lot of things. most importantly, it does not make sense GRRR Goons |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3384
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:18:00 -
[2000] - Quote
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. |
|
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1355
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:22:00 -
[2001] - Quote
i guess being able to drop a freighterload full of the stuff usually used in each of the arrays would be a nice start. GRRR Goons |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:24:00 -
[2002] - 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)
So Amarr stations get 5% reduction in materials, but POS gets 2% reduction, or do they stack?? 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 :)
|
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:26:00 -
[2003] - 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.
For cargo on CAA, if it is anything less than a Titan worth of materials, the remote skill is useless, cause SOMEONE will have to go to the pos and play mineral Tetris
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 :)
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
459
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:06:00 -
[2004] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:So Amarr stations get 5% reduction in materials, but POS gets 2% reduction, or do they stack?? They don't stack; the 5% reduction in Amarr outposts only applies to jobs started in the outpost. There's a dev post confirming this but I'm too lazy to find it; peruse the [DEV POSTS] button on the top of the forum page to find it if you don't believe me. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Dei
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:10:00 -
[2005] - Quote
Just doing some quick math:
Say Abaddon materials costs 100mil. In a station say install cost is 10mil. I sell for 120mil for 10 mil profit.
Produced in a starbase I save 2% of the material = 98mil cost. Are we saying install costs are still 10mil? Or less?
Let's say that it's 0 (which it isn't). I sell for 120mil for 17mil profit.
It costs 400mil~ to run a large POS. At this reduction I need to sell 20 Abaddons in order to break even. That's 2bil of stock I have to shift before I can even think about making a profit (and the install cost isn't even right, so it's more in reality).
Firstly, are my calculations correct in theory? Secondly, do we think that 2% reduction for manufacturing at a POS is worth it? If the above is correct I'm thinking no. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
459
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:13:00 -
[2006] - Quote
Dei wrote:Just doing some quick math:
Say Abaddon materials costs 100mil. In a station say install cost is 10mil. I sell for 120mil for 10 mil profit.
Produced in a starbase I save 2% of the material = 98mil cost. Are we saying install costs are still 10mil? Or less?
Let's say that it's 0 (which it isn't). I sell for 120mil for 17mil profit.
It costs 400mil~ to run a large POS. At this reduction I need to sell 20 Abaddons in order to break even. That's 2bil of stock I have to shift before I can even think about making a profit (and the install cost isn't even right, so it's more in reality).
Firstly, are my calculations correct in theory? Secondly, do we think that 2% reduction for manufacturing at a POS is worth it? If the above is correct I'm thinking no. Given that a Large Ship Assembly Array takes 300k grid, and an Amarr Control Tower Small has 1250k grid, I feel like using a large pos for a single LSAA is pretty wasteful. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Aluka 7th
138
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:22:00 -
[2007] - Quote
In what month will summer expansion be implemented? |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:47:00 -
[2008] - Quote
Querns wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote:So Amarr stations get 5% reduction in materials, but POS gets 2% reduction, or do they stack?? They don't stack; the 5% reduction in Amarr outposts only applies to jobs started in the outpost. There's a dev post confirming this but I'm too lazy to find it; peruse the [DEV POSTS] button on the top of the forum page to find it if you don't believe me.
I typed that about 3 minutes before I read that on the other post :( 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 :)
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
461
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:59:00 -
[2009] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Querns wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote:So Amarr stations get 5% reduction in materials, but POS gets 2% reduction, or do they stack?? They don't stack; the 5% reduction in Amarr outposts only applies to jobs started in the outpost. There's a dev post confirming this but I'm too lazy to find it; peruse the [DEV POSTS] button on the top of the forum page to find it if you don't believe me. I typed that about 3 minutes before I read that on the other post :( It's cool. The rate of changes being fired out here are so great, even I've missed one or two along the way. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Dei
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:05:00 -
[2010] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dei wrote:Just doing some quick math:
Say Abaddon materials costs 100mil. In a station say install cost is 10mil. I sell for 120mil for 10 mil profit.
Produced in a starbase I save 2% of the material = 98mil cost. Are we saying install costs are still 10mil? Or less?
Let's say that it's 0 (which it isn't). I sell for 120mil for 17mil profit.
It costs 400mil~ to run a large POS. At this reduction I need to sell 20 Abaddons in order to break even. That's 2bil of stock I have to shift before I can even think about making a profit (and the install cost isn't even right, so it's more in reality).
Firstly, are my calculations correct in theory? Secondly, do we think that 2% reduction for manufacturing at a POS is worth it? If the above is correct I'm thinking no. Given that a Large Ship Assembly Array takes 300k grid, and an Amarr Control Tower Small has 1250k grid, I feel like using a large pos for a single LSAA is pretty wasteful.
Was only an example since most people can relate to the rounded values. I could use smaller assembly line examples but the point is the same: You need massive market throughput to warrant putting up a high sec POS at these values. |
|
Dei
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:20:00 -
[2011] - Quote
Are we sure that unlimited slots are a good thing? From a lore perspective this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are not inifinite resources on a station/starbase and there's only so much space. Wouldn't an install cost based on % of lines running on a 28 day moving average be better?
The main reason you have a high sec POS is because of slot limitation. I can't really speculate on how players would be distributed because of infinite slots, but you hope that it'll mean players spread out. It could also mean that players cluster up near trade hubs due to the fact they can manufacture closer and the install costs are not high enough to warrant moving.
I think that if there were a finite number of slots, the implementation of Teams as a dynamic hourly rate for the job, plus the ability to sell starbase lines to the public would be fine. The current implementation creates quite a big problem if left as it is, and balancing starbases so they're still useful to industry in high sec is going to be hard.
For null sec, there would be player taxes for install costs and the ability to add more slots through modules. Time should be focused on allowing players to expand their outposts (or at least work on getting more than 1 outpost per system). The current implementation seems like a shortcut to an end that has not been realised correctly. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
462
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:23:00 -
[2012] - Quote
Dei wrote:Querns wrote:Dei wrote:Just doing some quick math:
Say Abaddon materials costs 100mil. In a station say install cost is 10mil. I sell for 120mil for 10 mil profit.
Produced in a starbase I save 2% of the material = 98mil cost. Are we saying install costs are still 10mil? Or less?
Let's say that it's 0 (which it isn't). I sell for 120mil for 17mil profit.
It costs 400mil~ to run a large POS. At this reduction I need to sell 20 Abaddons in order to break even. That's 2bil of stock I have to shift before I can even think about making a profit (and the install cost isn't even right, so it's more in reality).
Firstly, are my calculations correct in theory? Secondly, do we think that 2% reduction for manufacturing at a POS is worth it? If the above is correct I'm thinking no. Given that a Large Ship Assembly Array takes 300k grid, and an Amarr Control Tower Small has 1250k grid, I feel like using a large pos for a single LSAA is pretty wasteful. Was only an example since most people can relate to the rounded values. Not sure why you assume that I'd use a single Large Ship Assembly Array on a large POS. The calculation doesn't change in either case. Sure it does. A small POS consumes 25% of the fuel of a large POS per hour. Given your 400m / mo example, we can extrapolate that a small POS with an LSAA costs 100m / mo to operate. That decreases the number of Abaddons you have to sell (at 10m profit) from 20 to 5. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Dei
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:29:00 -
[2013] - Quote
Yes but I was just giving an example on how much product you'd have to shift before making a profit on a large POS. I'm not saying that you'd only produce Abaddons (obviously you'd produce more and perhaps use research labs) but rather I'm suggesting that you'd have to shift 2bil of stuff just to cover the cost of the large POS fuel.
If we take the current system, the main reason you have a high sec POS is because the slots are limited and you can't do ME research anywhere. In other words, you HAVE to put one up if you want to make money from manufacturing in the long run - it's an overhead rather than a cost of production.
In the summer system, POSes become a factor in production costs and not an overhead since you don't NEED them (you can just use the stations instead for everything). Therefore the main reason you would want to have a POS is to be able to save a shitload of money from manufacturing. My question is: Is 2bil of product shifting worth the saving? |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:14:00 -
[2014] - Quote
@Dei You mentioned the lore aspect, it was actually handled fairly well in that you are paying virtual NPC workers to run the apparatus (was so much easier to say lines for both labs and arrays )
Other parts well I'm kinda disappointed, the delay and then bam dropping 3 dev-blogs at once. Honestly it gives me the impression that the releases was designed to scatter the point by point arguments because they had vested too much and didn't quite get the fanfare they where expecting. Hehe, maybe it just took time to build some research and supporting materials retroactively...
Dunno, I have a major case of seeing "The tail wagging the dog". So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Valterra Craven
210
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:31:00 -
[2015] - Quote
Dei wrote:Are we sure that unlimited slots are a good thing? From a lore perspective this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are not inifinite resources on a station/starbase and there's only so much space.
I never understood people trying to justify "lore" in this way. Does it make "lore" sense to have infinite storage in stations? (I wonder how much M3 Jita currently houses....
Personally I think infinite slots is a stupid idea because it creates more problems than it solves... but its not like we are going to get a choice on the matter. |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Aliastra Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:53:00 -
[2016] - Quote
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. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
237
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:54:00 -
[2017] - Quote
Dei wrote:Just doing some quick math:
Say Abaddon materials costs 100mil. In a station say install cost is 10mil. I sell for 120mil for 10 mil profit.
Produced in a starbase I save 2% of the material = 98mil cost. Are we saying install costs are still 10mil? Or less?
Let's say that it's 0 (which it isn't). I sell for 120mil for 22mil profit.
It costs 400mil~ to run a large POS. At this reduction I need to sell 30 Abaddons in order to break even. That's 3bil of stock I have to shift before I can even think about making a profit (and the install cost isn't even right, so it's more in reality).
Firstly, are my calculations correct in theory? Secondly, do we think that 2% reduction for manufacturing at a POS is worth it? If the above is correct I'm thinking no.
>Manufacturing time bonuses
>Avoiding taxes
>2% reduction in costs
All of the above mean any decent industrialist will use a large POS, barring laziness. Together, ignoring them makes you really bad at math (also rather stupid). |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
237
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:58:00 -
[2018] - Quote
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. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:02:00 -
[2019] - Quote
Upon reflection I think I get the gist of CCP premise...
Someway or another the A.I. in POS structures all got lobotomized at the exact same instant so virtual workers are now required. Then mysteriously developed folding space technology but it only is applicable to manufacturing tooling and laboratories. Meanwhile back at the hall of absurdity.... People discovered you can use blueprints from inside containers but somehow forgot the method of using them remotely.
I suppose the expansion should be called "Paradox" or "Oxymoron"
For all the "supporting" information provided people would think to have some realistic constants. Seriously I put this on par with a caveman not being able to make a campfire building an ion based propulsion system. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Aliastra Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:11:00 -
[2020] - Quote
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 |
|
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
238
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:33:00 -
[2021] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:Upon reflection I think I get the gist of CCP premise...
Someway or another the A.I. in POS structures all got lobotomized at the exact same instant so virtual workers are now required. Then mysteriously developed folding space technology but it only is applicable to manufacturing tooling and laboratories. Meanwhile back at the hall of absurdity.... People discovered you can use blueprints from inside containers but somehow forgot the method of using them remotely.
I suppose the expansion should be called "Paradox" or "Oxymoron"
For all the "supporting" information provided people would think to have some realistic constants. Seriously I put this on par with a caveman not being able to make a campfire building an ion based propulsion system.
Our previously infinite supply of minmatar slave workers, lifetime supplies of which were factored into the isk cost of starbase modules when being built, has now dried up.
We now have to hire much more expensive paid, educated labor.
Basically? **** your lore. Lore should never get in the way of gameplay. The expansions are about improving gameplay - lore revolves around them. Gameplay does not revolve around lore. |
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
91
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:57:00 -
[2022] - Quote
Dei wrote:Yes but I was just giving an example on how much product you'd have to shift before making a profit on a large POS. I'm not saying that you'd only produce Abaddons (obviously you'd produce more and perhaps use research labs) but rather I'm suggesting that you'd have to shift 2bil of stuff just to cover the cost of the large POS fuel.
If we take the current system, the main reason you have a high sec POS is because the slots are limited and you can't do ME research anywhere. In other words, you HAVE to put one up if you want to make money from manufacturing in the long run - it's an overhead rather than a cost of production.
In the summer system, POSes become a factor in production costs and not an overhead since you don't NEED them (you can just use the stations instead for everything). Therefore the main reason you would want to have a POS is to be able to save a shitload of money from manufacturing. My question is: Is 2bil of product shifting worth the saving?
Dei, you slipped a decimal point somewhere.
If Player A puts 100M isk into building something in an NPC station, and gets X profit. Then Player B can put 98M isk into building the same something in a Large POS and get X+2M profit. So, for 100M isk of throughput, Player B gets 2M isk more profit.
If that Large POS costs 500M isk per month to fuel, then you need to get that 2M isk 250 times.
200 * 100M isk = 25 Billion isk worth of material throughput to pay for the fuel. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
19
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:58:00 -
[2023] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Flay Nardieu wrote:Upon reflection I think I get the gist of CCP premise...
Someway or another the A.I. in POS structures all got lobotomized at the exact same instant so virtual workers are now required. Then mysteriously developed folding space technology but it only is applicable to manufacturing tooling and laboratories. Meanwhile back at the hall of absurdity.... People discovered you can use blueprints from inside containers but somehow forgot the method of using them remotely.
I suppose the expansion should be called "Paradox" or "Oxymoron"
For all the "supporting" information provided people would think to have some realistic constants. Seriously I put this on par with a caveman not being able to make a campfire building an ion based propulsion system. Our previously infinite supply of minmatar slave workers, lifetime supplies of which were factored into the isk cost of starbase modules when being built, has now dried up. We now have to hire much more expensive paid, educated labor. Basically? **** your lore. Lore should never get in the way of gameplay. The expansions are about improving gameplay - lore revolves around them. Gameplay does not revolve around lore.
Seriously? I was addressing more of the issue of it not being logical than hollering it isn't lore so it is wrong. Anyway playing a game with a overly linear or non-existent storyline no matter the technical expertise involved in game play usually sucks after playing once. Counter point to that, a really good story can engage a player and increase replay value even if the mechanics are awkward. I only use lore in the context of the game making sense not specific operational game play.
Frankly speaking the expansion as proposed has very little in the way of improving game play. it doesn't overly break things and definitely playable. Overall it is not much than a more (subjectively) intuitive interface over a hack job of changing things to justify man-hours.
And wow, I didn't even need to insult or be profane amazing So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
ST Mahan
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 23:17:00 -
[2024] - 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)
This is good information. I'm assuming the assembly array production time bonus modifiers stay the same (for each type of array).
|
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
393
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 23:41:00 -
[2025] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Another update.
Assembly Arrays: Material reduction from all Assembly Arrays has been reduced from 5% to 2%.
Thats a huge dowside for POS owners. Unless someone is producing something requiring a large ammount of materials we will not get anything out of it.
T3's, rigs - both T1 and T2 - all of those use relativlely small ammount of items to produce, so no bonus or non-comparable bonus to (for example) mineral based production like t1 ships Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Sylvanium Orlenard
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
47
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 02:35:00 -
[2026] - 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.
I'm a little bit confused, could someone clarify?
Equipment Assembly Array Info wrote: A mobile assembly facility where modules can be manufactured more efficiently than the rapid equipment assembly array but at a reduced speed.
6 manufacturing slots Base time multiplier: 0.75 Base material multiplier: 1
What is this "Material Reduction" you speak of?
|
Olari Vanderfall
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
105
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 02:56:00 -
[2027] - Quote
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).
|
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
241
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 03:11:00 -
[2028] - 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).
There are 300+ highsec systems that offer all 3 services (ME/PE, manufacturing, invention).
This data was exported for the public in the comments in the latest dev blog comments thread
So, really, who cares? (Also CCP WANTS clusters)
|
Olari Vanderfall
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
105
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 03:16:00 -
[2029] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote: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). There are 300+ highsec systems that offer all 3 services (ME/PE, manufacturing, invention). This data was exported for the public in the comments in the latest dev blog comments thread So, really, who cares? (Also CCP WANTS clusters)
I care since we're going to need to unlock 1000s of BPOs from a system we've been in for 8+ years and move them to a new location where all the offices are probably already rented.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2840
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 04:33:00 -
[2030] - Quote
Olari Vanderfall wrote:Loraine Gess wrote: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). There are 300+ highsec systems that offer all 3 services (ME/PE, manufacturing, invention). This data was exported for the public in the comments in the latest dev blog comments thread So, really, who cares? (Also CCP WANTS clusters) I care since we're going to need to unlock 1000s of BPOs from a system we've been in for 8+ years and move them to a new location where all the offices are probably already rented.
Oh, I am sorrry. You have played the game under a stable set of conditions that allowed for a level playing field, and you expected to be treated fairly by CCP dev's with a system that maintained that level playing field?
Silly you.
Welcome to the new Eve order, where high sec risk is trivialized, ( I am sure even larger high sec gank camps will NOT form between the major research / manufacturing hubs and the trade hubs) and your time spent doing something / moving BPO's is considered without value.
Many industrialists quite rightly shake their head at the "my minerals are free because I mined them" concept. CCP has taken that to the next level, where the time it takes hauling BPO's and finished products 20 plus jumps to and from trade / research hubs is free also, because you are doing it in high sec. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
666
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 04:38:00 -
[2031] - Quote
Note to self:
Pull all pirate tags used for data-centre standing gains off the market and dump to current market buy before summer expansion. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2840
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 04:42:00 -
[2032] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:Note to self:
Pull all pirate tags used for data-centre standing gains off the market and dump to current market buy before summer expansion.
Started that last week. Prices have been crashing since the first blog came out. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kename Fin
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 05:07:00 -
[2033] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Another updateGǪ 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)
The time multiplier for copying on the Advanced Mobile Labs is currently 0.65 and not 0.75 as listed. https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Advanced_Mobile_Laboratory
The change from 0.75 -> 0.6 is a flat 25% boost. Since the current value is 0.65, is there any chance that the same 25% could be applied and get 0.53 time multiplier? Failing that, perhaps 17.5% for a 0.55? |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
20
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 05:33:00 -
[2034] - Quote
Aside from making prints more vulnerable to internal theft, removing the remote from office hangar feature except for the overly paranoid the risk can be virtually ignored in high-sec. The area I see it hurting the most is low-sec operations, particularly those who are just starting to venture into that arena. Plus the feature's removal in context doesn't make much sense and reduces options.
Having a pool of NPC workers in a system affecting the costs of jobs actually makes sense and is perfectly reasonable. However removing hard caps on amount of jobs at mobile labs and arrays does not. Someone with a basic understanding of manufacturing knows you have a finite space in a building or location. It is reasonable to believe a station or outpost could reallocate physical space to adjust for more concurrent jobs, in a mobile lab or array it doesn't. It would make more sense to simplify hard caps to jobs and not job types. Doing so shouldn't even need much change to work already done by dev nor affect the UI changes and lab modifiers. Just take the sum of the different job types in a lab and set that as the maximum capacity per that type of lab. Array capacity would just stay the same or tweaked.
Even if the previous paragraph is ignored, I still wonder if there is any advantage of having multiple labs at a POS after the expansion.
I know some may feel the things I am arguing against are trivial, to be honest I'm actually pointing out issues that I would actually benefit from personally if left as proposed. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Kename Fin
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 06:15:00 -
[2035] - Quote
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote: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.
I'm a little bit confused, could someone clarify? Equipment Assembly Array Info wrote: A mobile assembly facility where modules can be manufactured more efficiently than the rapid equipment assembly array but at a reduced speed.
6 manufacturing slots Base time multiplier: 0.75 Base material multiplier: 1
What is this "Material Reduction" you speak of?
I think we are missing an intermediary line in CCP Ytterbium's post. After reviewing it, I think there was probably an internal discussion (several in fact) about adding the Material Reduction for Assembly Arrays. After deciding to do so, the dropped it back to a lower value (a more sensible 2%). We are just missing the part where they added it in the first place. I think |
Kename Fin
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 06:25:00 -
[2036] - Quote
Flay Nardieu wrote:GǪ I still wonder if there is any advantage of having multiple labs at a POS after the expansion.
I know some may feel the things I am arguing against are trivial, to be honest I'm actually pointing out issues that I would actually benefit from personally if left as proposed.
Agreed. The first thing that came to mind was stripping down the POS the bare essentials.
- Advanced Mobile Lab for the copy bonus
- Hyasyoda Mobile Lab for everything else
|
Dei
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
31
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 06:40:00 -
[2037] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Dei wrote:Just doing some quick math:
Say Abaddon materials costs 100mil. In a station say install cost is 10mil. I sell for 120mil for 10 mil profit.
Produced in a starbase I save 2% of the material = 98mil cost. Are we saying install costs are still 10mil? Or less?
Let's say that it's 0 (which it isn't). I sell for 120mil for 22mil profit.
It costs 400mil~ to run a large POS. At this reduction I need to sell 30 Abaddons in order to break even. That's 3bil of stock I have to shift before I can even think about making a profit (and the install cost isn't even right, so it's more in reality).
Firstly, are my calculations correct in theory? Secondly, do we think that 2% reduction for manufacturing at a POS is worth it? If the above is correct I'm thinking no. >Manufacturing time bonuses >Avoiding taxes >2% reduction in costs All of the above mean any decent industrialist will use a large POS, barring laziness. Together, ignoring them makes you really bad at math (also rather stupid).
Could you do some quick math then to correct me? I included the above except manufacturing time bonuses (as they don't reduce cost, they just allow you to make more in a month). The fact still remains you have to shift a ton of product to cover the POS cost when you can now just use a station infinitely.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3150
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 07:37:00 -
[2038] - Quote
Kename Fin wrote:Sylvanium Orlenard wrote: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.
I'm a little bit confused, could someone clarify? Equipment Assembly Array Info wrote: A mobile assembly facility where modules can be manufactured more efficiently than the rapid equipment assembly array but at a reduced speed.
6 manufacturing slots Base time multiplier: 0.75 Base material multiplier: 1
What is this "Material Reduction" you speak of? I think we are missing an intermediary line in CCP Ytterbium's post. After reviewing it, I think there was probably an internal discussion (several in fact) about adding the Material Reduction for Assembly Arrays. After deciding to do so, the dropped it back to a lower value (a more sensible 2%). We are just missing the part where they added it in the first place. I think
It's in another post by Ytterbium, where he'd said all assembly arrays, except capital ship ones, would get a -5% to materials costs. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Kename Fin
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 07:48:00 -
[2039] - Quote
Uncle Stevie R wrote:It's in another post by Ytterbium, where he'd said all assembly arrays, except capital ship ones, would get a -5% to materials costs.
Ok - I lost track of what had been posted where. I was hoping to help Sylvanium O with his question. |
Aluka 7th
139
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 07:50:00 -
[2040] - Quote
Disclaimer: I manufacture, invent and do all BPO stuff for long time and have high(ish) ME on some prints.
This expansion is awesome.
Yea, it hits my wallet and makes me think hard but it gives two, no, four massive boosts to industry: - No need for boring refueling of research POSes as now you can find slots (copy/ME) in stations thus reducing peoples work and server load (for keeping track of all those research POSes). - Math behind current system is not complicated just harder to get all the details so simplifying (AKA dumbing down) is good for end product cost, markets and all players wanting to taste industry. - Removes all that insane research to ME100-500 by hitting your wallet for that madness. - Existing BPOs become even better.
POS with expansion becomes unnecessary or luxury. If you have profitable item and high demand then you WILL anchor POS and benefit from 33% more products per day if that extra profit covers your POS fuel. There is one more hidden benefit of POS buried in "The price of change" blog and who notices it will know why you really want a POS if you are production intensive corp/solo That 10% extra station tax in nothing that will make me move from station because its is multiplicative and ends up being on average 0.35-0.4% of end product price.
So with expansion you will need to use POS (industry related) only for T3 production, Capital production and specifically for highsec compression and faster production of decently profitable items.
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! |
|
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)? |
|
TopTrader
Tech3 Company Avaricious Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 10:28:00 -
[2071] - Quote
Hey,
since there are like unlimited slots based on the price your are willing to pay i have the following to say:
- as an POS owner, how will the new slot-layot work with the arrays? the arrays has 6 slots but how will this with Kronos? Do we need still the same amount of arrays as before on the POS or what will change? If you dont have clearly answers, when will these changes will be ready to test on singularity?
- in general, with the new slot-system, if you buy your slot late its cost you more and its scale with your item you want to build that means if you build expensive stuff like capitals you are forced to use systems that are not very much known
- is there anything besides the 2% material reduction and the little mobile lab buffs we get as POS owner? Ok 5% material reduction are to much but please we got the fuel costs which the station user dont have and as i understand they have literly the same slotcosts. The lab buffs are good but the most old POS owner already have their stuff well researched. Its right, there is allways new stuff to ME & TE :) but please aware the old POS owner, thanks
Do you have like a timeline when the single industry changes (frome the devbglogs) will be ready to test on singularity? I just can remember from the fanfest that you say that the new UI will be implimented on sisi within this week.
Thats it so far for my first feedback. Looks good and would be fun to see how the flexiblity will develop. Hope to get some answers from you guys.
TopTrader |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 10:42:00 -
[2072] - Quote
Sigras wrote: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)?
If ME changes to 0-10, 2% and 2 levels of ME are like saying Potato, Potatoe - same thing
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 :)
|
AFK Hauler
State War Academy
1012
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 16:39:00 -
[2073] - Quote
As the (un)official logistics coordinator for all of EVE, I hereby name the the resulting cyclical migration of players to new systems to engage in industry PvP as -
Gypsy Fleet or just Gypsies.
No, seriously - This simplification will (IMHO) cause the greatest population shift I've seen in a long time (if ever).
How can I compete in the 10% profit margin as an industrial PvPer with build costs cutting significantly into my ability to make ISK? The equipment costs calculated into the mix means that building in a POS out of the way in a low population system just became unprofitable because there is not enough stations in the system to reduce the instillation costs. A 0.48 to 0.55 modifier on the front of a build cycle is significant, especially when we PvP in the margins.
It's going to be pretty bad when the cycles start and we form manufacturing hubs to compensate build costs. The resulting inflation in the game will be significant and hard felt by the player community. This will be similar to the effect of a socialist government regulating a capitalist market - we pass the taxes to the consumer. The result will be a global inflation on all manufactured goods from 10-15% for this "simplification" of industry mechanics. |
Sigras
Conglomo
751
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 16:53:00 -
[2074] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Sigras wrote: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)? If ME changes to 0-10, 2% and 2 levels of ME are like saying Potato, Potatoe - same thing except that ME -3 ---> ME -1 is not 2%, its 20% |
Masayo Gowa
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 17:45:00 -
[2075] - 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.
how does increasing the max run on a T2 BPO increase the output from invention ?
you cant reinvent a T2 BPC (cant realy se why you would).
|
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 17:53:00 -
[2076] - Quote
Masayo Gowa wrote: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. how does increasing the max run on a T2 BPO increase the output from invention ? you cant reinvent a T2 BPC (cant realy se why you would).
Things = BPO's that can be used in inventions
Meaning if something had a max run of 300 it take 4 days to make that copy, now you increase max runs to 1000, now it takes 13 days to make the copy and the T2 BPC is still a 10 run T2 BPC. However, it took 13 days plus invention, where under the old 300 run, in the same time, you could have 3 10 run T2 BPC
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 :)
|
Masayo Gowa
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 20:41:00 -
[2077] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Things = BPO's that can be used in inventions
Meaning if something had a max run of 300 it take 4 days to make that copy, now you increase max runs to 1000, now it takes 13 days to make the copy and the T2 BPC is still a 10 run T2 BPC. However, it took 13 days plus invention, where under the old 300 run, in the same time, you could have 3 10 run T2 BPC
yeah sorry let me refrase that.
i am talking about T2 BPO's that you then make a BPC from. in other words there will never be an issue for things that can be used for invention.
but you will not realy be able to use a T2 fast run BPO to make copy's from (like ammo and drones) since they are max run 100 and without the ability to que them up it becomes a nightmare if you want to build from a POS with BPC's
other option is to build in stations. but noone realy knows what the pricetag is going to be on that
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
969
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 20:58:00 -
[2078] - Quote
fail... misread a post I was responding to... delete out of embarrassment. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
969
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 21:07:00 -
[2079] - Quote
AFK Hauler wrote:As the (un)official logistics coordinator for all of EVE, I hereby name the the resulting cyclical migration of players to new systems to engage in industry PvP as -
Gypsy Fleet or just Gypsies.
No, seriously - This simplification will (IMHO) cause the greatest population shift I've seen in a long time (if ever).
How can I compete in the 10% profit margin as an industrial PvPer with build costs cutting significantly into my ability to make ISK? The equipment costs calculated into the mix means that building in a POS out of the way in a low population system just became unprofitable because there is not enough stations in the system to reduce the instillation costs. A 0.48 to 0.55 modifier on the front of a build cycle is significant, especially when we PvP in the margins.
It's going to be pretty bad when the cycles start and we form manufacturing hubs to compensate build costs. The resulting inflation in the game will be significant and hard felt by the player community. This will be similar to the effect of a socialist government regulating a capitalist market - we pass the taxes to the consumer. The result will be a global inflation on all manufactured goods from 10-15% for this "simplification" of industry mechanics.
It is not 55% of total cost of manufacturing, or even 5%.
Your out of the way high sec system may have a base cost of 1% of produced goods and no modification for facilities. Nonni may have 12% base and dropped ti 6% for its 20 factories.
You are still beating them by 5%. Now, of course, you have to pay the fuel. Assuming 100 million ISK a month, you have to turn 2 billion a month in goods for the 5% savings to pay the fuel bill... then comes the risk, hassle, etc associated with POS BUT, then comes the advantage of being able to do other things at the POS like.... ummm... Well, since research at station is likely to be 2% of 7% or .14% of one item produced by the BPO... well, not worth any risk to put at a POS. So, I guess, the occasional refine or compress job. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
969
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 21:09:00 -
[2080] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Sigras wrote: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)? If ME changes to 0-10, 2% and 2 levels of ME are like saying Potato, Potatoe - same thing except that ME -3 ---> ME -1 is not 2%, its 20%
Except that ME-3 will be ME -30 after the release, and the 2% ME for being at POS reduces your waste to 28% from 30%.
|
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
969
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 21:15:00 -
[2081] - 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.
Which is an excellent reason for 1)Capping the minerals from reprocess. 2) Move toward people building off BPC. Probably have to invent all the named BPC from M0 BPO. 3) Concern for how datacores come from R&D agents. 4) Removing hard cap on slots as we'll be building a lot more if we're not competing with rat drop (too bad they designed such a horrid means of removing the hard cap... Solar system wide historic usage rather than jobs currently running in a facility as the bases of the cost scaling? What were they thinking?).
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3180
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 21:41:00 -
[2082] - Quote
Masayo Gowa wrote: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. how does increasing the max run on a T2 BPO increase the output from invention ? you cant reinvent a T2 BPC (cant realy se why you would).
Increasing Max run on T2 BPOs, increases the output from invention, because the number is used in the formula to calculate output runs.
Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)
(this may be the old formula. The difference isn't huge tbh, just effecting how decryptors apply)
Most T2 modules, amm0 and drones have a max run of 100, leading to an invented run of 10 (with a max run copy) T2 Ships and rigs have a max run of 10, leading to a invented run of 1 regardless of input runs. (excluding decryptors)
Increase those numbers by at least 10, and you add runs to the output of a max run invention job. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Khan'nikki
Justified Chaos
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 03:32:00 -
[2083] - Quote
POS DEATH & DESTRUCTION
Congrats on the lifting of Standings for structures in Highsec Space! Score one for small biz.
Now next on the list -- taking care of the Moon Squatters. Folks that anchor and forget.
Here's an idea: Moon Starbases that are not powered up take long term damage (be it NPC pirates, meteorites or just plain bad space mojo) and ultimately die. Their shields go down and structures decay. Maybe they spawn some kind of site that can be salvaged, raided, scanned .. you're the Makers.
.. just make them go away!
This would take care of the windfall that some ppl expect from the 'Can I Haz your lootz' of hacking into abandoned labs and such, while providing more anchorable places.
Thanks for reading!
|
Khan'nikki
Justified Chaos
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 04:18:00 -
[2084] - Quote
Size matters & Standings
Will you be limiting the size of the tower in empire based on standings mechanics instead ?
If so, what happens to those Large CT's already set up?
There has to be an angle in there someplace.
Thanks!
|
Sigras
Conglomo
752
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 06:27:00 -
[2085] - Quote
Khan'nikki wrote:POS DEATH & DESTRUCTION
Congrats on the lifting of Standings for structures in Highsec Space! Score one for small biz.
Now next on the list -- taking care of the Moon Squatters. Folks that anchor and forget.
Here's an idea: Moon Starbases that are not powered up take long term damage (be it NPC pirates, meteorites or just plain bad space mojo) and ultimately die. Their shields go down and structures decay. Maybe they spawn some kind of site that can be salvaged, raided, scanned .. you're the Makers.
.. just make them go away!
This would take care of the windfall that some ppl expect from the 'Can I Haz your lootz' of hacking into abandoned labs and such, while providing more anchorable places.
Thanks for reading! Or you could... You know... Use the mechanics available to you and war dec the Corp and knock their tower out yourself instead of asking CCP to do it for you. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:21:00 -
[2086] - Quote
I seriously wonder how many of the people posting about removing high-sec restriction on POS anchoring will be a boon to the small corp have even set a POS? Under the indicated direction of the expansion S&I is going to be a vagabond/nomad culture for the smaller groups, chasing the bonuses to improve the margins.
There is a significant amount of time involved not to mention the volume of the tower, lab, arrays, fuel, and stronthium. A setup for a small tower with labs and limited arrays would barely fit in an Orca. Then you need to load materials to do the actual work, which at least matches the volume of the tower and structures. The there is the tear down cycle...
People really need to research the POS operations process. CCP would be wise to limit the removal of restrictions to 0.5 security systems instead of a blanket removal. Security 0.5 systems are the fringe of high-sec offering all the "protection" of being in high-sec it also will give the "small" corps a foothold AND competition for moons. With the competition it would force novices to learn the mechanics better and give them a choice of working to increasing the standings with an empire to open more locations fostering a commitment (even if marginal) to the region of space they operate in.
Lifting the restrictions on only 0.5 space IMHO would be more pragmatic, logical, and balanced. Also it will allow more corps to "cut their teeth" on POS ops and maybe make them more secure in their abilities to pursue low-sec operations if that is the direction a corp decides to pursue
So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Masayo Gowa
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:08:00 -
[2087] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Increasing Max run on T2 BPOs, increases the output from invention, because the number is used in the formula to calculate output runs.
Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)
(this may be the old formula. The difference isn't huge tbh, just effecting how decryptors apply)
Most T2 modules, amm0 and drones have a max run of 100, leading to an invented run of 10 (with a max run copy) T2 Ships and rigs have a max run of 10, leading to a invented run of 1 regardless of input runs. (excluding decryptors)
Increase those numbers by at least 10, and you add runs to the output of a max run invention job.
i stand corrected :)
i wasn't aware that the invention BPC run was linked to the T2 BPO, i figured it was a fixed variable since not all invented BPC's have a matching BPO.
but in that case it shouldn't be a problem anyways, just multiply the amount of runs with 100 and change to invention formula equaly.
Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 1000) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)
that would keep the invented BPC's the same and let the ones making copy's from BPO's create BPC's that will be able to run for the full time you can rent a team and not just 17 hours at a time. |
Sigras
Conglomo
753
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:37:00 -
[2088] - Quote
Masayo Gowa wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:
Increasing Max run on T2 BPOs, increases the output from invention, because the number is used in the formula to calculate output runs.
Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)
(this may be the old formula. The difference isn't huge tbh, just effecting how decryptors apply)
Most T2 modules, amm0 and drones have a max run of 100, leading to an invented run of 10 (with a max run copy) T2 Ships and rigs have a max run of 10, leading to a invented run of 1 regardless of input runs. (excluding decryptors)
Increase those numbers by at least 10, and you add runs to the output of a max run invention job.
i stand corrected :) i wasn't aware that the invention BPC run was linked to the T2 BPO, i figured it was a fixed variable since not all invented BPC's have a matching BPO. but in that case it shouldn't be a problem anyways, just multiply the amount of runs with 100 and change to invention formula equaly. Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 1000) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) that would keep the invented BPC's the same and let the ones making copy's from BPO's create BPC's that will be able to run for the full time you can rent a team and not just 17 hours at a time. This is not a good idea... assuming that you also increase the max runs on all T1 BPCs as well, you're going to increase the time it takes to get a max run BPC, and therefore increase the cost inf invention. |
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
538
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:47:00 -
[2089] - Quote
Just make offline towers shootable without wardecs. CONCORD shouldn't be concerned that you're shooting abandoned space trash. The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Masayo Gowa
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:53:00 -
[2090] - Quote
Sigras wrote:This is not a good idea... assuming that you also increase the max runs on all T1 BPCs as well, you're going to increase the time it takes to get a max run BPC, and therefore increase the cost inf invention. i am only talking about T2 BPO's
and only to keep them usefull, i am pretty sure there will be some short commings if the T2 BPO's for drones and ammo suddenly arent getting used and all the ammo supply would be comming from inventions. |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
974
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 20:14:00 -
[2091] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Masayo Gowa wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:
Increasing Max run on T2 BPOs, increases the output from invention, because the number is used in the formula to calculate output runs.
Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)
(this may be the old formula. The difference isn't huge tbh, just effecting how decryptors apply)
Most T2 modules, amm0 and drones have a max run of 100, leading to an invented run of 10 (with a max run copy) T2 Ships and rigs have a max run of 10, leading to a invented run of 1 regardless of input runs. (excluding decryptors)
Increase those numbers by at least 10, and you add runs to the output of a max run invention job.
i stand corrected :) i wasn't aware that the invention BPC run was linked to the T2 BPO, i figured it was a fixed variable since not all invented BPC's have a matching BPO. but in that case it shouldn't be a problem anyways, just multiply the amount of runs with 100 and change to invention formula equaly. Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 1000) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) that would keep the invented BPC's the same and let the ones making copy's from BPO's create BPC's that will be able to run for the full time you can rent a team and not just 17 hours at a time. This is not a good idea... assuming that you also increase the max runs on all T1 BPCs as well, you're going to increase the time it takes to get a max run BPC, and therefore increase the cost inf invention.
Changes to cost of copy for invention are tiny when compared to "other onputs" becoming regular inputs and subject to the 10% increase (so BPO build is the same with 10% reduction with research) and then increased another 40% for negative ME.
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
974
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 20:22:00 -
[2092] - Quote
Masayo Gowa wrote:Sigras wrote:This is not a good idea... assuming that you also increase the max runs on all T1 BPCs as well, you're going to increase the time it takes to get a max run BPC, and therefore increase the cost inf invention. i am only talking about T2 BPO's and only to keep them usefull, i am pretty sure there will be some short commings if the T2 BPO's for drones and ammo suddenly arent getting used and all the ammo supply would be comming from inventions.
For items where T2 BPO is more than enough to supply demand, then T2 BPO build cost sets the market price. Removal of T2 BPO means prices will jump to invention cost.
For items where T2 BPO is not sufficient to meet demand, invention already sets the price (giving T2 BPO holders for these items FAT profits). In this case, price would only be effected by changes in invention cost.
And there is the great big issue!!!
If datacores and decryptors and such maintain a constant supply, but invention jumps because of T2 BPO removal, then the price of these items will jump, pushing up the cost of invention, and all T2 invented items. That will spiral until the supply increases (datacores, more people can grind skiils and standings to sign up with R&D agents), price hits equilibrium (decrypter so expensive no longer worth using) or demand declines to meet supply.
So... a big thing that I think CCP will have to balance with T2 BPO removal, is supply of invention materials. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3183
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 20:38:00 -
[2093] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Masayo Gowa wrote:Sigras wrote:This is not a good idea... assuming that you also increase the max runs on all T1 BPCs as well, you're going to increase the time it takes to get a max run BPC, and therefore increase the cost inf invention. i am only talking about T2 BPO's and only to keep them usefull, i am pretty sure there will be some short commings if the T2 BPO's for drones and ammo suddenly arent getting used and all the ammo supply would be comming from inventions. For items where T2 BPO is more than enough to supply demand, then T2 BPO build cost sets the market price. Removal of T2 BPO means prices will jump to invention cost. For items where T2 BPO is not sufficient to meet demand, invention already sets the price (giving T2 BPO holders for these items FAT profits). In this case, price would only be effected by changes in invention cost. And there is the great big issue!!! If datacores and decryptors and such maintain a constant supply, but invention jumps because of T2 BPO removal, then the price of these items will jump, pushing up the cost of invention, and all T2 invented items. That will spiral until the supply increases (datacores, more people can grind skiils and standings to sign up with R&D agents), price hits equilibrium (decrypter so expensive no longer worth using) or demand declines to meet supply. So... a big thing that I think CCP will have to balance with T2 BPO removal, is supply of invention materials.
Datacores mostly come from FW these days. Supply really isn't a problem.
Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
TopTrader
Tech3 Company Avaricious Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 16:47:00 -
[2094] - Quote
TopTrader wrote:Hey,
since there are like unlimited slots based on the price your are willing to pay i have the following to say:
- as an POS owner, how will the new slot-layot work with the arrays? the arrays has 6 slots but how will this with Kronos? Do we need still the same amount of arrays as before on the POS or what will change? If you dont have clearly answers, when will these changes will be ready to test on singularity?
- in general, with the new slot-system, if you buy your slot late its cost you more and its scale with your item you want to build that means if you build expensive stuff like capitals you are forced to use systems that are not very much known
- is there anything besides the 2% material reduction and the little mobile lab buffs we get as POS owner? Ok 5% material reduction are to much but please we got the fuel costs which the station user dont have and as i understand they have literly the same slotcosts. The lab buffs are good but the most old POS owner already have their stuff well researched. Its right, there is allways new stuff to ME & TE :) but please aware the old POS owner, thanks
Do you have like a timeline when the single industry changes (frome the devbglogs) will be ready to test on singularity? I just can remember from the fanfest that you say that the new UI will be implimented on sisi within this week.
Thats it so far for my first feedback. Looks good and would be fun to see how the flexiblity will develop. Hope to get some answers from you guys.
TopTrader
CCP, can i have an answer please? The new industry UI is still not on sisi. You said it will be available within this week. You have an timeline about the other stuff or not? I read something about next week...
|
Saeth Thara
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 20:06:00 -
[2095] - Quote
I'm probably repeating a lot of what others have said, so sorry in advance for that. I appreciate that others will like the changes and disagree with my feelings GÇô I respect this and IGÇÖm not saying my opinions are definitely the right ones, IGÇÖm simply trying to put across my point of view in as clear a way as possible.
Reprocessing Compression
Overall I have no issue with this part - the variation in refining yields with different facilities offers an increase in options for refining in terms of effort/risk input to reward. The skill changes also make a previously useless bunch of level 5 skills relevant and worth training.
The changes to compression also seem logical to me, helping to reinforce the value of the rorquals & pos modules functions.
The new reprocessing window looks like a good improvement over the old design, looking much clearer. The estimated values before and after should make it a lot quicker and easier to get an idea of how worthwhile the reprocessing is.
Manufacturing
The change to RAM and R.db makes sense, simplifies things a bit. Likewise with the changes to extra materials, given the change to reprocessing it seems sensible to do away with the extra materials and simplify it a bit.
The slot changes I guess on the whole are a good thing, however I've always got the impression that CCP wanted players to interact more, not less. With this change coupled with the change to remote research I would imagine a lot of people will move to using npc research slots rather than going to the effort of setting up a pos and (most likely) buying fuel from other players.
While removing standing requirements from pos anchoring also has it benefits it does again seem a bit odd. If the Amarr Empire dislikes player X so much that they'll shoot him on sight it seems unlikely they'd let him put up a pos in one of their systems uncontested. Also a lot of people have put in a lot of effort to get the required standing and it seems like a bit of slap in the face to say that they wasted their time. Lowering the standing requirements, maybe half of the sec status (so corp standing 2.5 to anchor in 0.5 for example) would seem like a better fitting idea, both in terms of making sense from a game law perspective and also making it more attainable to players.
The removal of using a pos to research a bpo thatGÇÖs in a station also doesnGÇÖt agree with me. While I appreciate risk vs rewards needs to be a factor the current setup is not completely safe. As it stands my current setup involves having 3B~ sat in space with a monthly fuel bill of roughly 300M. In exchange for that I get open slots and a bonus of between 25% & 35% depending on the activity. If I was war dec'd and either had the pos shot down or had to take it down myself I would stand to loose an additional 400-500M in bpcs being produced, plus loosing and ME/TE research I may be part way through.
With the proposed changes I would need around 27B sat in space and in exchange for this I gain a further 10% to 15% benefit (so 30% / 35% compared to npc). So my risk, in terms of assets that others can directly harm, goes up by 900% and my jobs get an extra 10%-15% off. I would imagine others will have significantly higher value BPOs and as such the increased risk could be much more in many cases.
Your changes to BPO research times also means that they could need to be at the pos for a much greater length of time again massively increasing the risk of the pos coming under attack and forcing you to loose a potential much larger amount of invested time.
Given that a pos with a lab up is also now almost definitely going to contain bpos I imagine getting war decs will become more frequent making it harder for smaller and more casual corps to employ them in a useful capacity. I for one wont be able be able to justify it GÇô as I casual player I often wont login for a few days. The same is true of many of my corp mates. It would be entirely possible for all of us to be offline for long enough for the corp to be war dec'd, the pos reinforced and shot down before any of us logged on. Currently that means we run the risk of loosing 3B in equipment and probably 500M to 750M in lost bpcs and value of the research. Its not the end of the world, but it would be enough to hurt. After the changes the risk would become so skewed vs the reward that not using the npc slots would seem incredibly stupid on our part. I know the blog says they dont expect more expensive bpos to be risked like this, but realistically speaking these bpos are the area the a pos offers the best bonus for, and are likely what they are mostly used for currently (who is going to set a pos up just to save 35% of the time on a bpo that reaches perfect ME in a week or two?).
I would much rather see a system where you are more able to pick the level of risk you run. Maybe having it so the closer to the pos the bpo is the great the benefit. Or having to have a module at the pos to broadcast data to and from the station at the cost of either increasing tax or reducing the number of labs/jobs that a given pos could handle.
|
Saeth Thara
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 20:07:00 -
[2096] - Quote
The reduction in copy times makes sense in so much as it seems odd that building the thing takes longer than making a copy of the bpo, but in doing so it does mean that certain bpc markets, such as capital ship / components, are likely to get flooded with the increased number of bpcs causing more work and a lot more clicking creating lots of smaller lower value contracts. Also the only reason I can see for reducing the copy time is to compensate for the massively increased risk of working at a pos caused by the mobile research changes, which as already stated I oppose anyway.
Industry UI
I personally donGÇÖt have any issues with the current UI although I agree its probably looking a bit dated now.
The new bpo info looks good, got no complaints with that.
The manufacturing screen...i personally feel looks more confusing and cluttered than the old. A number of things, like the picture of the station and output location could probably loose the pictures to make things a little less congested visually. Likewise, while the picture of the finished product does a good job of filling up space on the right hand side I donGÇÖt feel it adds much function GÇô the person in question should know what theyGÇÖre building regardless of the presence of a big picture of it.
I also donGÇÖt feel the connection lines help that much. Yes have a colour to show if all the things are ready or not GÇô but I donGÇÖt feel the little dots around to tell me how many are ready helps, especially with items requiring a larger number of inputs.
No issues with the new activity icons. The input groups GÇô I like the idea of grouping them by type, but think id prefer a drop down text list (guess IGÇÖm old fashioned that way...).
Again with the thing in the middle I donGÇÖt feel the flashing lights add anything for me, but they donGÇÖt detract either so no real issue. And as long as you keep the text box so I can type in how many runs I want rather than fighting with a slider I donGÇÖt mind that either.
The jobs tabs, some options could be nice here. For example having the activity name not the picture as an option. Being able to turn of some of the columns could be good as well (I wouldnGÇÖt use the sec status one for example). And being able to show the system location would be nice as well (seems odd this is missing?).
The BPO filter looks great, I look forward to being able to find things without opening so many containers.
Renaming PE to TE is a good change, glad to see it happen.
Overall I have no issues with most of this GÇô but this especially will benefit from hands on experience, so I look forward to it being up on the test server.
Research
Copying changes, as stated earlier, does make sense to me but I do worry about the effect of greatly increasing the number of bpcs will have on the market for things like capital ships. The extra clicking to make the larger number of contracts certainly will be a downside.
The changes to ME/TE IGÇÖm broadly against. The changes at one and the same time punish newer player, causing a much enlarged gap between old and new for larger items and also punishes older players with higher researched bpos by effectively wasting a large amount of invested time. The only people to come out well from this are those with a broad collection of lightly researched bpos.
I donGÇÖt feel that the current system, one of diminishing returns for a consistent amount of time invested per level is that hard to grasp. By all means put info on what the perfect ME for a bpo is in the info screen, or even make it so you cant go above perfect ME, or improve tutorials to help better educate players, but doing this seems to an overly complicated and unfair change to a large group of players and I don't feel its needed at all. As others have pointed out, the chances of a new player catching up with someone who say has a current level ME10 carrier BPO is unlikely.
Also, while I appreciate that those with ME10/PE10 or above end up with max level bpos under the new system I don't really feel its fair to take away the time we invested and effectively wasted above me/te10 without any additional benefits over those who only took them to 10 in the first place. If you decided that skills were to complicated and cut them from all going to level 5 being the max to level 4, you wouldnGÇÖt expect those who had trained skills to level 5 to just sit back and accept they'd been idiots for training past level 4 and you'd find some way of compensating them for the time they invested, leaving them with some advantage over someone who only went to level 4 in the first place. At the end of the day the only difference here is the name GÇô the point is time was invested for a benefit, with that benefit now being taken away.
With the remote research changes and the fact that the research time is going to be years for a single level in some cases, it will likely have to be done in a station, making it even harder to catch up in a sensible time frame. I feel that this attempt to simplify things also detracts from some of the challenges of industry. Currently while the benefits of higher level bpos are smaller they can often be enough to be worth it if you are making that item a lot. With the new system everyone being capped at level 10 leaves much less room for someone who really wants to make an item to invest more time in the bpo to give him an advantage of the competition (some items I know have low levels of perfect ME but most don't).
I have seen some people suggest the changes to a max level of 10 would help allow a cleaner bpc sale system. While it would be nice to have a better system, even with only 10 options for each you would still have the potential for 100 different bpcs even before you took the number of runs into account.
In short I feel the change punishes old and new players alike, admittedly in different ways. |
Saeth Thara
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 20:08:00 -
[2097] - Quote
Job Cost Scaling
Starting off, I do agree manufacturing and npc research costs are to low, not really factoring in to most peoples costs in a significant way.
The proposed system seems interesting, in the short term I do worry about the market shorty after the patch, but as always IGÇÖm sure it will sort itself out soon enough.
I will be interested in how the job costs actually vary over time. While I donGÇÖt believe people should necessarily be static all the time I donGÇÖt want to be moving my setup every month in order to find a suitably cheap location to build at.
I worry that larger groups will just pick a system, hire good teams and raise the price enough that others wont deem it worth going there, however this will likely be down to player trends so its hard to predict how things will go I guess.
But overall it seems like interesting idea and I look forward to seeing how it works in practise.
Teams
I'm not entirely sure what I expected when I saw talk about teams. I had hoped for a system whereby multiple players could come together in some meaningful way to coordinate research and manufacturing, rather than a system which is basically bidding for a npc team to magically appear in system with a knowledge of industry that appears to far outstrip that of a capsuleers (admittedly at the cost of using dangerous drugs), who are usually much better at things than non capsuleers if ship piloting etc are anything to go by.
I guess some sort of PI link could have been used, maybe having people sacrifice harvesting/factory planets to produce some sort of product that would make such activities more effective. Which in turn would allow for Dust (or Legion as Dust is apparently dead) players to get involved in some useful capacity destroying or defending the installations, and also being a drive for conflict between eve pilots in a slightly deeper way the one group having more isk to throw at a team than another group.
Overall I haven't got anything id say is definitely better than the currently proposed idea for teams, but it would have been nice for it to have been something players actually did, rather that just paying off some npcs, whom I thought we were meant to be distancing ourselves from. |
Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 20:52:00 -
[2098] - Quote
Can I save on team costs if I let these guys Scientist or any of the other listed here work for me? That would finally make them useful. |
Zorrkinae vonHui
Gnostics of the Sense of Life
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 22:15:00 -
[2099] - Quote
"building better worlds" ... can-¦t stop thinking bout Wayland Corp ...evil eve world, wanna make money of the dead "there are million ways to death, but only one way leads to life" |
Sigras
Conglomo
761
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 01:55:00 -
[2100] - Quote
Saeth Thara wrote:Manufacturing
The slot changes I guess on the whole are a good thing, however I've always got the impression that CCP wanted players to interact more, not less. With this change coupled with the change to remote research I would imagine a lot of people will move to using npc research slots rather than going to the effort of setting up a pos and (most likely) buying fuel from other players.
The removal of using a pos to research a bpo thatGÇÖs in a station also doesnGÇÖt agree with me. While I appreciate risk vs rewards needs to be a factor the current setup is not completely safe. As it stands my current setup involves having 3B~ sat in space with a monthly fuel bill of roughly 300M. In exchange for that I get open slots and a bonus of between 25% & 35% depending on the activity. If I was war dec'd and either had the pos shot down or had to take it down myself I would stand to loose an additional 400-500M in bpcs being produced, plus loosing and ME/TE research I may be part way through.
With the proposed changes I would need around 27B sat in space and in exchange for this I gain a further 10% to 15% benefit (so 30% / 35% compared to npc). So my risk, in terms of assets that others can directly harm, goes up by 900% and my jobs get an extra 10%-15% off. I would imagine others will have significantly higher value BPOs and as such the increased risk could be much more in many cases.
Given that a pos with a lab up is also now almost definitely going to contain bpos I imagine getting war decs will become more frequent making it harder for smaller and more casual corps to employ them in a useful capacity. A few things on this:
1. a POS gives you a 50% bonus to copying which is a huge deal for inventors (though I agree, I dont see much research being done in a POS unless they have extra CPU) 2. nobody ever looses BPOs to a POS bash in high sec. You get a 24 hour notice if anyone is going to attack your tower; you can even have your phone alert you to a war dec. This gives you 24 hours to get your BPOs out of the tower and put away before you can be attacked. If you cant be asked to log in after you get a notification that someone has war decced you, maybe POS mechanics arent for you? 3. Given that only the laziest of the lazy lose BPOs in a POS I dont think that they're going to be as common as you may think |
|
Sigras
Conglomo
761
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 02:06:00 -
[2101] - Quote
Saeth Thara wrote:Job Cost Scaling
I worry that larger groups will just pick a system, hire good teams and raise the price enough that others wont deem it worth going there, however this will likely be down to player trends so its hard to predict how things will go I guess. You have to remember that if you're paying the price, so are they, so if it isnt worth it for you to work there, it isnt worth it for them to work there either. The only difference is that they had to spend the ISK to move the team there, so you actually come out ahead in that scenario.
Saeth Thara wrote:Teams
I'm not entirely sure what I expected when I saw talk about teams. I had hoped for a system whereby multiple players could come together in some meaningful way to coordinate research and manufacturing, rather than a system which is basically bidding for a npc team to magically appear in system with a knowledge of industry that appears to far outstrip that of a capsuleers (admittedly at the cost of using dangerous drugs), who are usually much better at things than non capsuleers if ship piloting etc are anything to go by.
I guess some sort of PI link could have been used, maybe having people sacrifice harvesting/factory planets to produce some sort of product that would make such activities more effective. Which in turn would allow for Dust (or Legion as Dust is apparently dead) players to get involved in some useful capacity destroying or defending the installations, and also being a drive for conflict between eve pilots in a slightly deeper way the one group having more isk to throw at a team than another group.
Overall I haven't got anything id say is definitely better than the currently proposed idea for teams, but it would have been nice for it to have been something players actually did, rather that just paying off some npcs, whom I thought we were meant to be distancing ourselves from. They said that is probably going to be in a future iteration. In fact the PI thing that you suggested was exactly their idea. Whether or not that comes to fruition is ... debatable, but they did think of that. |
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space BORG Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 11:31:00 -
[2102] - Quote
As there was a question from the devs earlier, what could make POSes more viable for players. I just had an idea that may be worth something.
Let me start by comparing it to an analogy: We can set the speed of our ships. How fast they should be going. The same is true for nowadays ships, that have things like "Full throttle" or "half speed". How about adding this to the starbases, so its users have more options when it comes to burning through the fuel blocks, as sometimes you do not need "full speed ahead".
give a Starbase a few modes to operate in (using a large POS as example):
- minimum: just to keep the starbase shield up, everything else offline and unable to work, all arrays unusable, something like a standby mode, that also conusmes very few fuel blocks. Basically setting the tower to "self support only", without any CPU or power to spare.
- 1/4: only using a fourth of the fuel blocks, and getting only one fourth of the output, roughly putting a large tower to run in "small POS mode", running on 10 blocks per hour.
- 1/2: using half fuel blocks and half power, a large POS would have the same output as a medium tower at that rate, putting its consumption to 20 blocks per hour.
- 3/4: giving it a new "inbetween" power output of the medium tower and full consumption, for a large POS that would be running on 30 fuel blocks per hour.
- full: Operating at 100% with full output and full consumption, what means running on 40 fuel blocks per hour.
This would also open up the doorway for a new sort of gameplay that so many request on the forums. As every tower needs to at least run on minimum - you know risk vs reward. Currently putting an offline tower in HS has no risk attached to it at all, you need to open up a wardec. Use this super low consumtion rate as keeping up minimum operation of the tower. As it could be as low as consuming only one fuel block per hour, that should be affordable by anyone who runs a POS.
In return you could add additional gameplay for "truly offline towers". Whatever it may be. For example a truly offline tower cannot notify concord that it gets attacked, allowing free attack on it. Or... a truly offline tower has its mainframe offline, and cannot withstand hacker attacks. Or whatever else... there are so many ideas about that out there, that could be placed there.
I think this may add variety, may nullify the need to keep towers offlined (some corporations keep different sizes of towers out there, depending on what sort of demand may arise - if they can switch one tower in different modes, this need is gone).
Those modes should also be added to small and medium towers - so if someone just wanted to run an "ore compression tower", they could use a small one and set it to 1/4, running on the barest minimum just for the compression array. That may open the world of POSes to smaller corporations who were unable to afford them so far, but that may now be doable with a small POS that runs on the "one fourth" setting.
The current faction towers would need rework though, to give them a different set of "bonus" to still make them desireable. More CPU output... more power output... maybe bonus that adds additional time or other modifiers to its attached arrays. As those faction towers need to keep their "worth", but overall i feel that this basic idea would add a lot in terms of "making people want to use them", and also opening the doors for "possible offline tower gameplay" - as everyone can keep them in standby for very low costs. Nothing should be for free. |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 11:39:00 -
[2103] - Quote
Sigras wrote:A few things on this: 1. a POS gives you a 45% bonus to copying which is a huge deal for inventors (though I agree, I dont see much research being done in a POS unless they have extra CPU) 2. nobody ever looses BPOs to a POS bash in high sec. You get a 24 hour notice if anyone is going to attack your tower; you can even have your phone alert you to a war dec. This gives you 24 hours to get your BPOs out of the tower and put away before you can be attacked. If you cant be asked to log in after you get a notification that someone has war decced you, maybe POS mechanics arent for you? 3. Given that only the laziest of the lazy lose BPOs in a POS I dont think that they're going to be as common as you may think
I would have to disagree with 2 & 3 in the above quote. Irregardless of the fact of lower risk of loss in high-sec and external utilities to notify a player of wars or the perception of only the lazy would lose forcing the BPO into a POS for work, specifically the R&D aspect is counter-intuitive. It seems that people forget that Eve: online is a game and real world situations take precedence over entertainment. Computers crash, internet connections go down, and many worse things can happen outside of a player's control.
Eve of course is a game of potential loss and that is acceptable in and unto itself. However for industrialists BPOs are very close to being on par with time and isk spent on SP and Standings especially for the independents and small groups where loss of BPOs would cripple their abilities to come back from large losses due to whatever reason. If something was ever introduced that could affect a player's skills or standings negatively in their absence there would be a revolt. Of course the argument can and will be made that BPOs are transferable assets, which is true, however the also convey an ability to do something and are fundamental necessity in that regard.
Granted many players get their enjoyment on the suffering of others whether the suffering player deserves it or not. Also gods forbid that anyone argues in the favor of fairness. Even though the changes as stated will affect me only on the nuisance level I do feel this part of the changes affect on gameplay is in need of being represented.
Setting aside the grief junkies position, removal of remote from station is a bad idea on many levels that I have pointed out in the past and I believe firmly. Hell, even if a small/micro corp loses multiple billions with a POS bashed and offices assets impounded due to failure to pay office rental it wouldn't garner the Rage-quit that someone would have coming back after an absence and losing key abilities and assets. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 13:51:00 -
[2104] - Quote
Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes? Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 15:19:00 -
[2105] - Quote
Seith Kali wrote:Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes?
try reading the devblog, that is where they were listed. they haven't said much other than that |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7370
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 17:01:00 -
[2106] - Quote
Seith Kali wrote:Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes? cost devblog Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 17:49:00 -
[2107] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Seith Kali wrote:Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes? cost devblog
Thanks, yeah, I guess with like a ton of devblogs, i could have been slightly more helpful.... |
Dingoo Ridgeback
Bitten By Science
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 20:34:00 -
[2108] - Quote
I'm looking forward to the industry changes but one thing keeps bugging me; I'm using POS for T2 manufacturing and that means I have to stick around to manualy move materials between various modules (like component and equipment assembly arrays). The remote job installing is no good since the more complex assembly arrays (like equipment, drone or ship) cannot take materials from component assembly array or corporate hangar (which wouldn't help anyway, because the goods from component assembly array cannot be delivered to corp hangar). The same thing happens when you run out of material in one of the modules but you still have plenty in the other - once again you have to travel to your POS just to move stuff around.
Will this be addressed in some way? I haven't realy found an answer to that but I sure hope it will. Right now I can manufacture T2 components remotely but then I still have to warp to my POS to move them to different module in the same POS. That kinda beats all the benefits of remote job management and I don't know why since all the materials are at the POS anyway. Thanks
We had to work hard to become the top of the food chain so enjoy your steak and stop babbling about some healthy vegies. |
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 20:53:00 -
[2109] - Quote
Been hoping for some kind of silo module myself. Right now literally the only way to handle scale industry is with a corporate office Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
475
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 06:43:00 -
[2110] - Quote
Dingoo Ridgeback wrote:I'm looking forward to the industry changes but one thing keeps bugging me; I'm using POS for T2 manufacturing and that means I have to stick around to manualy move materials between various modules (like component and equipment assembly arrays). The remote job installing is no good since the more complex assembly arrays (like equipment, drone or ship) cannot take materials from component assembly array or corporate hangar (which wouldn't help anyway, because the goods from component assembly array cannot be delivered to corp hangar). The same thing happens when you run out of material in one of the modules but you still have plenty in the other - once again you have to travel to your POS just to move stuff around.
Will this be addressed in some way? I haven't realy found an answer to that but I sure hope it will. Right now I can manufacture T2 components remotely but then I still have to warp to my POS to move them to different module in the same POS. That kinda beats all the benefits of remote job management and I don't know why since all the materials are at the POS anyway. Thanks
Maybe an alt sat in or near the POS would be a good comprimise for now, with the appropriate roles of course? Looks liker I have to wait until July to play with POS but I'd rather that than them be wrecked by a rushed release
|
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
219
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 22:44:00 -
[2111] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:5% material reduction.
Gah. That's a /major/ change. 5%, so basically the pinnacle of manufacturing then. Ok interesting. |
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 11:56:00 -
[2112] - Quote
Querns wrote:NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so others should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.
What makes this invalid? That is exactly how I feel. If I worked my ass off in missions getting to 7 faction standing so I could anchor in 0.7 then a change to a no standing requirement is naturally going to annoy me.
I think it's a perfectly valid reason for thinking it's a bad idea to remove the standing requirement. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3266
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 12:01:00 -
[2113] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:5% material reduction.
Gah. That's a /major/ change. 5%, so basically the pinnacle of manufacturing then. Ok interesting.
It's been changed since then. now 2% reduction. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Vexo Colari
Dark Sanctum
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 06:59:00 -
[2114] - Quote
I realize this is part of the tweaking from the other Indi changes but are the POS's ever gonna be reworked?
I mean in my opinion the entire POS system is probably the oldest part of EVE, set up is terrible, etc.
I think it needs a complete overhaul.
These ideas that were in the commonly proposed ideas area should definitely be looked at.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6342&find=unread
They are in the 4th post.
I think there were some great ideas in there that can be tweaked and will fit into this whole summer industrial expansion you guys are doing.
Hopefully you have something planned out already!
Cheers |
Sigras
Conglomo
765
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 10:04:00 -
[2115] - Quote
Logan Revelore wrote:Querns wrote:NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so others should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.
What makes this invalid? That is exactly how I feel. If I worked my ass off in missions getting to 7 faction standing so I could anchor in 0.7 then a change to a no standing requirement is naturally going to annoy me. I think it's a perfectly valid reason for thinking it's a bad idea to remove the standing requirement. By that logic nothing should ever get fixed... allow me to illustrate:
I had to suffer through the time when a TItan could remote DD a grid through a cyno. Thats right, the titan didnt have to be on grid, he didnt even have to be in the same system, he could just DD you if there was a cyno on grid with you.
Right when I get one, CCP changes it so you have to be on grid to DD someone.
Now is it better for me to complain that everyone should have to suffer the way I did? or is it better to recognize the fact that the game mechanic was beyond stupid in the first place and the game as a whole is now better off even if it hurts my character personally? |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
200
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 10:17:00 -
[2116] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Logan Revelore wrote:Querns wrote:NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so others should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.
What makes this invalid? That is exactly how I feel. If I worked my ass off in missions getting to 7 faction standing so I could anchor in 0.7 then a change to a no standing requirement is naturally going to annoy me. I think it's a perfectly valid reason for thinking it's a bad idea to remove the standing requirement. By that logic nothing should ever get fixed... allow me to illustrate: I had to suffer through the time when a TItan could remote DD a grid through a cyno. Thats right, the titan didnt have to be on grid, he didnt even have to be in the same system, he could just DD you if there was a cyno on grid with you. Right when I get one, CCP changes it so you have to be on grid to DD someone. Now is it better for me to complain that everyone should have to suffer the way I did? or is it better to recognize the fact that the game mechanic was beyond stupid in the first place and the game as a whole is now better off even if it hurts my character personally?
Hello Apples! This is my friend, Oranges. Let's discuss comparisons. Shall we?
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown |
JanSVK
Benzene Inc. The Explicit Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:57:00 -
[2117] - Quote
Hello everyone.
All jobs in POS are corporation jobs. Anyone in the corporation with the right roles can access, see, deliver, manipulate the jobs of everyone using the POS laboratory or assembly arrays. And anyone who wants to use POS for production or researge needs exactly these roles. This brings up the issue of security and corp thieves espetially in larger corporations.
Researching blueprints is a minimal risk being stolen by corp members as Blueprints can be locked and even if anyone from the corp would steal the finished output products (BPC) then the loss in isk is not that high (< 100 mil).
If I decide to use a POS to build T2 equipmen I have to trust any corp member not to steal my stuff when it is finished with little to no security system in place. Potentially bilions of isk in assets at risk when producing t2 stuff for example.
My suggestion would be to make the POS jobs owner restricted or give the ability for players to controll which characters can access deliver/cancel their jobs. While we at it same could go for the materials in the laboratories. Another solution would be if all labs could access the personal storage hangar in the POS. |
Dingoo Ridgeback
Bitten By Science
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:11:00 -
[2118] - Quote
JanSVK wrote:Another solution would be if all labs could access the personal storage hangar in the POS.
That would be nice since that would fix the security issues and the remote access issues I posted earlier. Of course the assembly array would have to be able to take materials and deliver the product from/to the hangar. We had to work hard to become the top of the food chain so enjoy your steak and stop babbling about some healthy vegies. |
Big Dallocort
The Killer Kangaroos
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:33:00 -
[2119] - Quote
So with the standing restrictions lifted for high sec pos, will you be able to put all structures like drug lab and reactors into the pos or are they still only for low sec |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:08:00 -
[2120] - Quote
I continue to hold the position that a total removal of anchoring restrictions is a bad idea. Originally I was completely against it, but after further thought have concluded that having it limited to the lowest security in high-sec (0.5) would be of benefit to both entry level POS managing corps AND established corps willing to commit to allying themselves with a particular empire faction.
All of the comparisons/analogies I've seen comparing this particular change to previous changes and examples lack common ground or parity. I can even further the argument by saying a group or individual investing in the faction of one empire runs foul of the opposing faction and their allies. Case in point this character is a Gallente aligned industrialist, and is "shoot on site" by Caldari and Amarr navies. A complete removal will lend to a noncommital approach to gameplay where only the Faction Warfare players are at risk venturing into enemy territories.
The mechanics that allow players/corps anchor a POS in high-sec also has the side affect on where those players can venture most importantly in wars between corps or alliances. Again empire navies will engage players in appropriate security level systems based on their standings hence preventing them from join battles in those systems, I would say it is a good thing because it forces even more strategy when attacking or defending space bound assets. Without the reason to gain the standings the rewards for doing standing missions become very less appealing since the cumulative gain was more important than the individual standing mission rewards.
The complete removal of empire standing need in anchor will have some very subtle and rippling effects in other areas. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
|
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:07:00 -
[2121] - Quote
With merge of extra materials into base materials, if I understand correctly, insurance on many hulls will significantly go up.
My question is how are ships insured pre-patch going to pay out if destroyed after patch - old rate or new rate? |
iwannadig
Nagibators Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 10:23:00 -
[2122] - Quote
As a part of industry UI improvements I would like to have an opportunity to link not only item from item blueprint, but also item blueprint from item (where applicable). |
Leptus
3 Musketeer's
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 01:55:00 -
[2123] - Quote
This dev blog states:
"-Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials."
So CCP is going to force industry players to put all of their BPO's into the POS and at risk . This is not a risk reward design. Industry corps may have billions of isk and years tied up in researched BPO's for copy/ building . This is the industrialist profession and how they sustain income. To force all of our assets into space for the taking is ridiculous. This turns contracts into a shopping list of POS's to plunder for the BPO one is looking for. A couple of BS BPO's are worth attacking a POS, what about the corps with carrier, titans, or T2 BPO's?
If CCP is attempting to cut off supplies and alienate high sec industrialist then this is the way to do it. |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
130
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 15:45:00 -
[2124] - Quote
Leptus wrote:So CCP is going to force industry players to put all of their BPO's into the POS and at risk . This is not a risk reward design. Industry corps may have billions of isk and years tied up in researched BPO's for copy/ building . This is the industrialist profession and how they sustain income. To force all of our assets into space for the taking is ridiculous. This turns contracts into a shopping list of POS's to plunder for the BPO one is looking for. A couple of BS BPO's are worth attacking a POS, what about the corps with carrier, titans, or T2 BPO's?
If CCP is attempting to cut off supplies and alienate high sec industrialist then this is the way to do it. Shhh.... no one tell Leptus about BPCs, or he might put them in the POS instead of his BPOs.
Really, it will take two minutes to remove a BPO from POS, assuming you're starting in station in the same system, with a negligible financial loss, because you aren't going to be building off a BPO. That's why CCP is changing copy times to be 80% of build. Your risk isn't actually going up all that much if you know what the heck you're doing.
Yeah, there will be a lot of tears when this hits because of the throngs of players that spent so much time whining about it instead of preparing for it. These players will find themselves kicked out of the profession in the initial rush to pop Research POSes. That will leave the landscape dominated by the active and prepared, and then, eventually, people will learn that it's not worth it to siege a high-sec POS just for the chance at a few BPCs. |
KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 05:30:00 -
[2125] - Quote
i think the game will truly become game changing if
1) POS now can truly be anchored anywhere, except for restricted zones like 100km away from stargates, from NPC stations, etc. 2) since now bases can be anywhere, MOON GOO should also now be re-randomized and repopulated to EVERYWHERE. moon mining should then be allowed in HS too. 3) in light of what mechanisms planet PI uses, moon mining should also adopt similar mechanisms. moon goo runs a certain cycle before it runs out (maybe 4 weeks? 8 weeks?) then cosmic randomization occurs. its just like W-space, you dont really know where the next exit will pop out of. goo hunters need to rescan for new moon to mine the goo. 4) amount of base materials used to construct items in eve should require a rebalance.
if not otherwise, all that the changes thats been said is only because a certain group asks for it in their advantage but not necessarily for the good of the game and all players as a whole. then why therefore do we sub for a game that only changes mechanisms that will benefit a certain group of voices and not all? WUT ??? |
KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 05:37:00 -
[2126] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Khan'nikki wrote:POS DEATH & DESTRUCTION
Congrats on the lifting of Standings for structures in Highsec Space! Score one for small biz.
Now next on the list -- taking care of the Moon Squatters. Folks that anchor and forget.
Here's an idea: Moon Starbases that are not powered up take long term damage (be it NPC pirates, meteorites or just plain bad space mojo) and ultimately die. Their shields go down and structures decay. Maybe they spawn some kind of site that can be salvaged, raided, scanned .. you're the Makers.
.. just make them go away!
This would take care of the windfall that some ppl expect from the 'Can I Haz your lootz' of hacking into abandoned labs and such, while providing more anchorable places.
Thanks for reading! Or you could... You know... Use the mechanics available to you and war dec the Corp and knock their tower out yourself instead of asking CCP to do it for you.
what if ... goonwaffe or moar tears (or some commerce entity) deliberately setup POS squats using proxy corps and jams up entire systems? for their own economic advantage?
so similarly, by that few minutes of deployment, someone will need hours to rip it down. so the best suggestion to CCP is, if a tower is left unattended for over 6 hours, it should AUTO un-ANCHOR! like mobile depots ...
if the POS does not auto-un-anchors based on my version of mechanics then we know these peeps are active in their POS squats and they need to put in man power/hours to POS squat / re-arm them
i will like to HIGHLIGHT that devs should they themselves play as INDY for a few weeks or months before attempting to tweak or change things. as it is, a sandbox, we are playing a defective game and we just got used to it thats all. and we do get around to things we need to do eventually, and i think that is what bug fixers hope we do ... ignore bugs highlighted. WUT ??? |
Sigras
Conglomo
816
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 10:58:00 -
[2127] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:i think the game will truly become game changing if
1) POS now can truly be anchored anywhere, except for restricted zones like 100km away from stargates, from NPC stations, etc. I sincerely hope you mean cant be posted on grid with stargates, NPC stations, etc. otherwise I would like to introduce you to large artillery batteries which have a 250 km range
KanashiiKami wrote:2) since now bases can be anywhere, MOON GOO should also now be re-randomized and repopulated to EVERYWHERE. moon mining should then be allowed in HS too. wow ... clearly you dont know how this game works... Within a month Goonswarm would lock up every moon thats valuable and anyone trying to stop them would simply get rofl-stompped by a billion RR sentry dominixs... taking out towers in high sec requires numbers that few can muster
KanashiiKami wrote:3) in light of what mechanisms planet PI uses, moon mining should also adopt similar mechanisms. moon goo runs a certain cycle before it runs out (maybe 4 weeks? 8 weeks?) then cosmic randomization occurs. its just like W-space, you dont really know where the next exit will pop out of. goo hunters need to rescan for new moon to mine the goo. You have obviously never used moon probes... try scanning a few thousand moon and then think about doing that every month... Also have you given any thought to what it would do to the market as people horde mats for the upcoming reshuffle? or you know... any thought into this idea at all?
KanashiiKami wrote:4) amount of base materials used to construct items in eve should require a rebalance. yeah because that wouldnt take a ridiculously long time
KanashiiKami wrote:if not otherwise, all that the changes thats been said is only because a certain group asks for it in their advantage but not necessarily for the good of the game and all players as a whole. then why therefore do we sub for a game that only changes mechanisms that will benefit a certain group of voices and not all? I would respond to this if it were written in english... |
Sigras
Conglomo
816
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 11:01:00 -
[2128] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:Sigras wrote:Khan'nikki wrote:POS DEATH & DESTRUCTION
Congrats on the lifting of Standings for structures in Highsec Space! Score one for small biz.
Now next on the list -- taking care of the Moon Squatters. Folks that anchor and forget.
Here's an idea: Moon Starbases that are not powered up take long term damage (be it NPC pirates, meteorites or just plain bad space mojo) and ultimately die. Their shields go down and structures decay. Maybe they spawn some kind of site that can be salvaged, raided, scanned .. you're the Makers.
.. just make them go away!
This would take care of the windfall that some ppl expect from the 'Can I Haz your lootz' of hacking into abandoned labs and such, while providing more anchorable places.
Thanks for reading! Or you could... You know... Use the mechanics available to you and war dec the Corp and knock their tower out yourself instead of asking CCP to do it for you. what if ... goonwaffe or moar tears (or some commerce entity) deliberately setup POS squats using proxy corps and jams up entire systems? for their own economic advantage? great... so they put up say 25 towers achieving full moon coverage with a proxy corp. This costs them about 2 billion ISK and leaves them with no defenders for the towers and no advantage as they're not onlining any of these towers... that seems like a great plan... |
Flay Nardieu
Forgotten Union of Knackered Tradesfolk Universal Rockstars
43
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 15:32:00 -
[2129] - Quote
After 100+ pages and thousands of posts between several related threads I really hope CCP really reconsiders some of the intended changes.
Particularly...
- Complete removal of empire standings to anchor a tower (an encroachment model is better, starting at .5)
- Forcing BPOs to be at the POS (remote from office in same system works! so leave it be)
- Requiring multiple labs/arrays to achieve optimal bonuses
- Several other changes I've mentioned about a dozen times but don't feel like iterating again.
It would also be nice to make the graphical part of the new UI scalable to some degree, it takes up too much display real estate as is.
Also I've already noticed the placement of multiple idle towers in systems with ice belts by single corporations, none where from the big low or null alliances but it does show people are quite willing to squat to annoy those w/o standing req's placing in beneficial locations where the new compression arrays be of most use. So... I am a carebear, Really?-á Ok.... I'll be CRAZY Bear then! |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Aliastra Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 07:02:00 -
[2130] - Quote
If i hade the choice betwin accepting all the changes in sirus or remowe it all,then trash it i say,thats hove bad som of this changes are to me. |
|
Zuul Achura
Stampeding Beasts
5
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:40:00 -
[2131] - Quote
Quote: The damage per run mechanic has been removed from the game. This mainly affects R.A.M. and R.Db items R.A.M. and R.Db requirements have been multiplied by 100 on all jobs that required them (mainly Tech II manufacturing and research) All R.A.M. and R.Db blueprints now produce 100 more items for the same amount of materials R.A.M. and R.Db volume has been divided by 100 Please refer to the "Building Better Worlds" Dev Blog for more details
Existing R.A.M. units a character owns were multiplied by 100? If not, we lost 99% of their value/usability. A job that used to require 0.75% now requires 75 units. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:10:00 -
[2132] - Quote
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.
Bzzt, wrong. Sellers always try to pass along the entire cost increases but the downward slopping nature of the demand curve with respect to price prevents this. The effect of the increase in costs is thus a burden on both the buyer and the seller. And that is only if people insist on using the most jammed up building slots. The 0-14% is a sliding scale and is dependent on how intensively the slots are used. But no, lets simply assume the worst outcome is going to apply everywhere...well except NS where they wont face these kinds of added costs via some sort of elite PVP magic or some such.
Just checked, BTW, and the price of the Nestor from 3 months ago is down...alot! A whole ******* lot.
So much for Dinsdale and his predictions.
|
|
|
|
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] |