|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
1
   |
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:
Transport costs are going up 50% (at least), which throws a serious wrench into a lot of the chance for nullsec to compete: imported minerals just got more expensive, importing non-local moon materials likewise, making it make even more sense to import the smaller finished products instead of the raw materials. With no cost advantage over a highsec pos sitting one jump from jita, there's nothing you can do to make up those transport costs.
The non-local moon materials are a big logistical issue in null-sec production. We did some calculations a couple of weeks ago and discovered that it's more volume efficient to import t2 components than moongoo. Given the ease with which one character can outproduce a local null market, we're right back at 'why build in null at all'.
Really that supports Greyscales statement regarding the need to address the null ecosystem as a whole - right now there aren't sufficient markets to support manufacture and the logistical overhead is icing on the cake keeping industry in highsec. The game is in a state where there's immense inertia keeping industry largely in high-sec.
|
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
General comments:
Conceptually, I like the addition of simulated labor cost to a game that I think of as an economy simulation using PvP combat as a demand driver. It's interesting to read one dev blog describing a simplification of the ME mechanic followed by another introducing a rather complex mechanic.
Specific to the pricing scheme, your data on reverse engineering points out one flaw: uncommon activities are already lumpy enough in distribution to result in high costs overall. On the simulation side, sure, that activity doesn't have many available workers so they are free to charge a lot, but on the gameplay side it's rather worrying. Did you consider using more of a sigmoid function (where the multiplier approaches 0 asymptotically on the low and and some 'cap' asymptotically on the high end)? That would prevent things going wacky on either end and make the increases gradual at the extremes.
The multiple run discount not stacking across prints run consecutively is annoying (or worse) in the case of t2 production.
Really like to see a list of the station modifiers, or at least a better idea of what they're based on - is it going to be racial, by station type (refinery, factory, plantation...) or what?
Finally, I also want to add my voice to the chorus asking for full numbers around activities in POSes. This is pretty critical for us to understand what the total impacts are going to be. |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We were originally looking at a volume-based system, but IIRC we decided there were too many weird relationships for it to really make sense.
Volumes seem to be under multiple contradictory constraints. The reprocessing change removes one of them, but there's still stuff like certain moongoos being very large (I assume to remove coupling arrays as an output option) as well as the fact that a pile of minerals getting smaller when made into a gun (necessary to get the price curve right, but even without processing results in counterintuitive relationships in the logistics trade)
|
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 19:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:The balance between this "push" force and the varying "pull" that Teams will exert gives players two forces to balance against each other, with gameplay deriving from figuring out how to best balance those two forces and looking for places where you can out-decide other players to gain competitive advantage.
For null-sec, the cost of logistics acts as another 'push'. The need to use jump freight to import foreign goos and export finished goods now has a very strong damping influence on null industry. The labor cost landscape combined with the posibility of hiring teams might have been enough to counteract this were it not for the increase in jump freight costs that were just announced. |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 22:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Juin Tsukaya wrote:if I am not mistaken. you were stating that hi pop areas such as nonni will be getting better prices for job starts then say a back water system with only 2 stations.
if this is the case. wont that kill some of the desire to go out to some of the farther hi sec systems? I go out there cause of the room on the lines for copy, manufacture and the like. with the way it sounds. it would be better to flood a place like nonni instead of spreading out.
TD in those areas will then get like jita as will gankers since they will know where the best place to get the goods will be.
Systems with a lot of industrial activity will be rather more expensive than systems with little activity. Systems with a lot of facilities will be somewhat cheaper. A system like Nonni will wind up finding a balance between the two - probably at the point where additional players basing there derive no benefit. That point will depend on the specialities of teams resident in that system compared to what that industrialist is interested in building, but there will come a point where the 'push' overwhelms the 'pull' for any given player.
And yeah, gankers and wardeccers might start camping those systems. They might even follow teams whose specialities are lucrative. That's Eve. |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 15:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Weaselior wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:As in, total global hours for each activity type?
Yeah, so we can model what sort of costs we can expect post-patch. Whatever it is at this moment is 'good enough' for that sort of modeling. I've got the OK to release those numbers but the guy who has the data has gone home for the day (I only have percentages in my working sheet). I'll try and post them up tomorrow morning.
Any word on this? Also, any update/details on how you're going to deal with labor costs in POS modules?
|
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 22:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
OK, now that I've stopped waiting for those numbers Greyscale said he was sending out and started putting together estimation spreadsheets, I've got to say that turning the formula into a series is mathematically ugly and an insult to your favorite spreadsheet jockies. It's fine in the code generating the cost algorithmically, but I've spent 20 years avoiding ******* around with macros in spreadsheets and I'd rather not start now, I've already written more Eve-related code this week than I care to admit.
That and it is pretty damned silly how quickly that thing cuts the cost down. The sooner you can get us details around where and how you intend to cap that out (and details on POS bonuses/caps, and overall production numbers) the better. Please, for the love of god, tell us what you plan before it becomes a fait accompli. |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 21:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
Do you have any concrete numbers and formulae around POSes yet? There are a lot of old posts arount intent and comments that this or the other are 'interesting' but I've seen nothing concrete to date. Given the projected SiSi release on the 10th, I'm hoping you have something and are simply too busy to post, but by the same token, I find the idea of reverse engineering what you have in front of you highly annoying. |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 02:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Still trying to get hold of the the global usage numbers :)
Thank you very much. I'm also concerned about the offline modules being counted. It seems like I could set up a single pos with a pile of offline labs, component arrays, and ship assembly arrays and crank out t2 frigs with heavy bonuses all the way through the chain, unless I'm missing something. |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 19:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
Skalle Pande wrote:
I would much prefer a larger bonus per online facility (like, for labs, as many percentage points as they have slots of different types now), and then perhaps a cap on how many modules of a given type you can hang on a small/medium/large tower. That way, you could still have versatility and protection if you so choose, or you could max your percentage bonus up to a limit for a select few types of operation. But bonuses for offline modules - simply a sillly proposition, IMHO.
The cap is already there in the CPU and powergrid of the tower. I'd not like people being prevented from setting up defenceless towers in pursuit of profit.
I completely agree that it should only count online modules, but that begs the question: online when? Only when the job is installed? Then people will run around swizzling what's online as the proceed through their production cycles. Should the modules be locked in an online state until the job completes? That sounds like some major coding in a subsystem that's been widely publicized as being pretty hairy already, although there might be an elegant solution in there. Should costs adjust whenever you offline a module? More weird code, plus the problem of where to get the money from...
Having said all that, I earnestly hope that CCP will find the time and technique to eliminate or reduce the offline shenanigans.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|