Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
zahter
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 13:40:00 -
[511] - Quote
"CCP Greyscale" wrote:We are totally open to suggestions for what to do with starbases as they relate to industry. In particular, if anyone who does starbase work can spend a few minutes outlining the *simplest* changes they think would be sufficient to keep starbases in a reasonable place for this release, we're very interested in hearing them. Yes, we know "throw it out and start over" would be great, but we're not getting that done between now and the summer release, no matter how much we'd like to.
There are some very good suggestions on POS issue but they are temporary. They are mostly relying on the existing POS industry system. I support them with all my heart. These solutions will look odd in a new industry system. The centre of problem is the old untouchable POS code. You want to get rid of them, we capsulers hate them but all of us have to live with them. The main solution relies on a gradual dismissal of starbases.
CCP already started doing something on the issue. Mobile structures are implemented. Why don't you extend the variety of mobile structures. Introduce mobile structures similar to POS modules; assembly arrays, labs, shield generators, mobile guns. You have absolute freedom to play with mobile structre code. It is not dangerous and scary like the old POS code.
Here is my long term solution for starbase industry. Mobile industry hangar; every job runs here like a station. runs on fuel Mobile assembly arrays and labs; giving bonuses for industry, nullifying production/research/copy/invention costs required in a station. Gives bonus to ME, TE, invention success, copy time etc. They will run on fuel. As much as you can stand. Mobile shield generator; protects our structres, runs on fuel. (shield generation needs to be close to (celestial bodies-plantes/moons) to prevent abusing it in other places). There is no limit to the number of shield genereators near a celestial body. Fuel silo; stores fuel. Can form links to other mobile structures to deliver fuel they need. fuel consumption increases greatly with every added assembly arrays and labs of same type.This will mean the second assembly array will require more fuel than the first one.
When jobs starts on industry hangar, fuel usage will increase depending on the number of jobs.
This still feels like slots on a pos but whole system is completely depends on your limit of fuel expenses.
New "team" system also allow this mobile structures to work effectively. You can divide your big array/lab structures into small production nodes located in star systems which have good teams working on. your bonus/advantage level is dependent on your fuel usage.
|
Raketefrau
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Fatal Ascension
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 13:42:00 -
[512] - Quote
Woo! More complexity! More calculations! |
Anonymous Trader001
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 13:55:00 -
[513] - Quote
Having sat down and gone through each of the blogs and running the numbers. I think CCP has pretty much achieved the "push" and "pull" they aimed for. Obviously, tweaks will be necessary to make sure the balance is right.
Manufacturing in congested systems will erode the profitability of manufacturing. My numbers show that the manufacturing cost in addition to base material cost gets pretty close to (sometimes exceeds) the sell price of the item in trade hubs.
Moving to "quiet" systems with relatively little manufacturing will negate the congestion multiplier, but you don't benefit from the facility reduction multiplier. These systems end up better off than congested systems, but marginally worse than relatively busy systems with lots of stations. There will be "Goldilocks" systems where the balance of stations vs. population will be just right. The office rental mechanic may need to be revisited to ensure that those systems don't just end up in equilibrium.
The teams feature allows the bigger manufacturing hubs to pool resources and buy teams that can restore the profitability of that hub. The Team Up blog indicates that CCP will use team seeding to keep the system in balance. i.e. potentially limit the ability of hisec manufacturing cartels establishing dominant manufacturing hubs.
Based on the information released thus far, it appears that POS manufacturing will fade away. The cost of fuel will just eat profit. Unless POS manufacturing gets some kind of boost, it just won't make sense in k-space.
Speaking for my own manufacturing operation, I should make more isk than I do now. Job installation and research costs will be 1/2 to 2/3 the amount I spend on POS fuel today.
It'll be interesting to see if the market accepts manufacturers simply passing on the additional installation costs, or if manufactures offset the additional job costs with the savings made on POS fuel.
This is definitely going to be different.
|
Trader Agent
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:06:00 -
[514] - Quote
...too many quotes
The problem is, your making living in high sec very tedious so any 'fun' that there was, is rapidly disappearing.[/quote]
To the degree that that is true, we're then failing in one of our design goals.[/quote]
doesnt that then set the alarm bells ringing? or is it a case of its too far down the road to change much now so its tough?[/quote]
At this point in the feedback cycle we're still evaluating to what degree we feel that is in fact true :)[/quote]
Honestly, industry in null is WAY more clumped than it is in high sec. I suspect the outpost systems in null will have very high cost, while there will be very cheap, and relatively safe systems all over high sec.
I just do not see how this change is going to crush high sec.[/quote]
If you don't see how this is going to crush High Sec, may I suggest that we also give a 20% bonus to all damage, shields, armor and structure hit points...to all members of null sec corporations. Its about the same thing, so that should make this issue clear. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
473
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:19:00 -
[515] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Matthew wrote:The suggestion by Querns to scale by the number of organisation-owned arrays in the entire system sounds sensible - it's a much easier query to run, and is consistent with the approach taken of aggregating NPC facilities across the entire system. However, it doesn't get around the problem of gaming the system with rapid online/offlining of "secondary" arrays. Yes, online/offline shenanigans is something we need to think about. In this regard, perhaps use the online timestamp to "debounce" the calculation. Any array that has been online for <30 minutes, or some other time limit, does not count towards the total number of modules.
There's a lot of room for scaling the calculations up and down depending on how players find ways to exploit the formula. I feel like it could be something that's fluid and reacts to player ingenuity. The stakes are pretty small here, so there's not a whole lot of room for a Faction-Warfare-Forex-style resonance cascade scenario. 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
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:20:00 -
[516] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, let's talk about thinking!
For long-term games like EVE, one of the big challenges is to keep things interesting over multiple years. "Interesting gameplay" often, particularly in a more deliberative field like manufacturing, stems from interesting decisions. In order to have gameplay stay interesting for many years, therefore, we need a constant flow of decisions for players to make, which is a thing we feel to be lacking in current industrial gameplay.
In the case of industry, we feel this is (correctly) a slower-paced area of the game, so we want decisions that happen over weeks and months, not hours and minutes. We're also trying to balance the desire to have a landscape, which points primarily at decisions based on geographic differences, with the assumed desire of established industrialists not to have to move around too much. You see the posts from people asking for API access to all the needed info? Why is that? Quite simply, they want to create 3rd party tools the tell them the exact, most cost effective method of producing goods at the lowest price. These "most cost effective" then set the market, and anyone using less than optimal will make little to no profit, so will be forced to use these same "most efficient" if they want to be profitable. [snip]
Okay, no.
I work in the CA energy markets, and that is not the case. It is the least efficient seller needed to clear the market that sets the price. And this is for a good that is highly inelastic (at least in the short run, in the longer run there is more elasticity).
This is also seen in experiments (essentially games...like EVE) where economists try to simulate competitive markets. The result is a Nash equilibrium and again, the least efficient seller necessary to clear the market sets the price.
Those with the most cost effect set up earn economic profits...and it is that potential that invites new entrants to the market, and that it is no longer going to be static will induce people to move around. That latter decision will be factored in as a cost.
For example, a player might have a nice profit margin in the system he relocated too. However over time others notice that the system is good and start moving there, and the profit margins start to dwindle. At a certain point, the first guy in system may start looking for a new home and when he finds one he'll move. He wont have an actual isk figure here, but he'll make that decision sooner or later. After all how much isk do you put on packing and moving your stuff? Its in that nebulous area of opportunity cost, which rarely fits in nicely into an accounting spreadsheet. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
148
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:31:00 -
[517] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Felicity Love wrote:Jesterspet wrote:I'm sorry, but saying: "As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor." is a very poor excuse of an answer and just blows me away. This tells us that you really don't actually care about something that is quite central to the entire industrial complex.
All of which carries the unspoken admission that: A) We want people to colonize Null space, so we'll make Industry more a more attractive "carrot" to lure them out there. Maybe. B) Buuuuuuuuuuuut... we can't be bothered to give them a place to do it, so they'll have to live in Outposts controlled by other alliances that will simply gouge any possible profit margin out of the equation anyway -- thus making the whole effort pointless. But that's "Okay" because we don't want to fix something that needs fixing. SEEMS TO ME we went through the whole mindset a number of years ago, followed by profuse apologies... and then more profuse apologies.Here we go again. The fact that the dev's are openly soliciting for ANY ideas about how to handle POS's shows 2 things: 1. The dev's don't understand how POS's are used in the game, and frankly, don't have a clue about industry in this game, and this release should be delayed until it is complete, which includes POS's industry advantages. 2. The chief architects of these changes never planned on using POS's in their manufacturing strategy, other than for super-capital ships, so they focused on their stations, and ignored POS's.
Oh dear. A 'Dinsdale' post that may be correct.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7179
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:39:00 -
[518] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Yes, online/offline shenanigans is something we need to think about.
calculate once at downtime, use that value for the next day Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Kun'ii Zenya
The Executives Executive Outcomes
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:40:00 -
[519] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: (Actually, the "correct" way to use a POS will be to put a small tower in a system without any stations, in a corp of 1, with a bunch of copy alts. Perhaps add on a compression array and freighter in ore. The limited number of labs in stations is going to cause those places to have max copy/research prices. All other systems will l have virtually no research/copy cost. Get a war dec, create a new corp, put up a new POS, move the toons there, take down the old POS. Fun, Fun, Fun game play there!
You would lose the system facilities bonus to all your job/run costs. It still might make sense to do this for some items, but this is not a given. Of course we need to see the starbase multiplier as well, it is going to be a bonus so presumably this multiplier will be less than 1. So you could be correct here. We may see POS's moving from systems with stations to systems without.
And I don't think you will max out the run/job costs. Remember the equation is:
RC = (Price of Output)*[sqrt(Fraction of global job hours)]*(team cost)*(facility reduction)*(starbase bonus)*[0.99^(hours for multi-run)]*(FW Reduction)*(Outpost Reduction)*Taxes
In this specific case we can simplify this too:
RC = (Price of Output)*[sqrt(Fraction of global job hours)]*(team cost)*(facility reduction)*(starbase bonus)*[0.99^(hours for multi-run)]*Taxes
Further, lets assume you aren't going to use teams, and that the starbase bonus for now is 1, so we can remove that too (mainly to simplify). So we get,
RC = (Price of Output)*[sqrt(Fraction of global job hours)]*(facility reduction)*[0.99^(hours for multi-run)]*Taxes
With no stations in system I think we can set the facilities reduction to 1, further simplifying things to,
RC = (Price of Output)*[sqrt(Fraction of global job hours)]*[0.99^(hours for multi-run)]*Taxes
Okay, so we see that you still have the part dealing with the square root of the fraction of global job hours, but my reading of that is,
(Number of Job Hours in System)/(Number of Job Hours Universe Wide)
Since the denominator will be large relative to the numerator you may very well end up minimizing that cost multiplier. If the 0.0001 is used as the floor for the fraction of global job hours, your multiplier in this case would be 0.01 or 1%. So having a POS for copying and inventing in a system with no stations could very well make sense for things like modules. After all 2%*1% = 0.2% or a very low copy cost.
If invention works like copying (after all in invention you get a BPC, not an actual in game item), that is the run cost for invention also gets the 2% multiplier (i.e., 2% times the value of the T2 item) inventing would also likely have a minimal cost multiplier of 0.2%
So an out of the way system with no stations maybe a good place to set up a POS and do work in there. Yeah, you might do your building in a nearby station system (or not).
Note: Since this is a player owned facility, I'm ignoring taxes. At least that is how I read the Dev Blog. |
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:44:00 -
[520] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:
What we really needed was: 1) stop crushing manufacturing with meta loot drops. Let us build everything rather than being forced into the few things that rats do not drop.
THIS! 1000x this!
LHA Tarawa wrote: 2) fix invention so that we can create BPOs rather than having to reinvent the wheel every run.
Not holding my breath. Seriously though, I've never understood why this wasn't instituted with Day One of invention.
LHA Tarawa wrote: 3) you should have turned manufacturing into more of a PI type UI. I put ore in and route it to a factory. Allow me to trigger the factory job based on how many are on my sell order (every time my Fusion L sell order falls below 100K kick off a factory job to manufacture another 100K) or hanger quantity (every time corp hanger "PVE supplies" falls below 100K kick off another job). The factory routes the output of the job to the hanger or the sell order that triggered it. OR, of course, I could just run an immediate start execution, and when it completes, it drops it into my hanger.
Then, the game play comes from managing my inputs and outputs instead of tediously re-crunching ever moving build cost factors.
That could add a level of interest.
Frankly though, I'd be happy if they'd just not break what people have worked hard to attain, i.e. "what the hell am I supposed to do with my labs now?" if I live in HS. I'm a small-scale operation, as I'm sure there are many others as well. Prior to these announcements I have effectively refrained from recruiting while grinding up empire faction (apparently the wrong/hard way) in order to place a research POS in HS. There were good reasons for this. Were fuel and maintenance be a burden on my profits. Absolutely, at least at the outset. However, in order to be competitive AT ALL it is imperative that ME be researched. This meant a POS was a MUST, as slots in HS are all but impossible to come by. In that light, I could absolutely justify the costs of onlining and maintaining a HS POS even as a one man corp. Once anchored, I would no longer have to worry about standings averages among corp members causing me to be unable to set up a POS in empire, and could merrily go about the business of recruiting and leveraging labor. Obviously the standings become a non-issue with the upcoming expansion. However, I now have a newer, larger problem concerning setting up a POS in HS: cost effectiveness. Let's be real here, is there truly a scenario in which paying the station costs for research and manufacturing, even at max values, while KEEPING the 300-500M I'd have to spend to fuel the POS is going to be LESS profitable than shelling out the ISK for fuel and saving 10% on taxes? I highly doubt it. The only viable reason I've seen mentioned thus far under the realities of the upcoming expansion for putting up a POS in HS is for mineral compression for sale to null. All very well and fine, and undoubtedly a profitable venture. That is NOT, however, why I've gone to the trouble of acquiring all those lovely BPOs sitting in my corporate hangars. Again, I'm the small fish, and am well aware of that fact. It's been said that "you aren't an industrialist" if you aren't turning billions in materials/products. This is elitist fallacy. All industrialists were startups at one point, and that's something the Dev's need to consider concerning the upcoming changes: they pose SEVERE obstacles on smaller/newer operations (which all newer players obviously will be) trying to establish themselves, and they make any non-compression HS POS not merely an "ISK sink" but a true ISK Pit. |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
440
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:51:00 -
[521] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Yes, online/offline shenanigans is something we need to think about.
calculate once at downtime, use that value for the next day
Could you not then online a whole raft of labs before downtime and offline them after? There would need to be some form of length of time online included to determine the actual use of the structure. This would make sense too as production line facilities are loathed to shut down usually as it takes time to get back up to optimal efficiency
|
Hamarr Stedi
Steelforge Heavy Industries Northern Associates.
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 15:32:00 -
[522] - Quote
At first I was really excited when I heard this expansion was going to be industry focused. But apparently your idea of an "expansion" is merely adding a bunch of unnecessary headaches and complexity, sticking it to highsec, and ******* over POS owners. Please, please, please do the summer expansion on something other than industry. Go screw over some other area of the game. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 15:33:00 -
[523] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Weaselior wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Yes, online/offline shenanigans is something we need to think about.
calculate once at downtime, use that value for the next day Could you not then online a whole raft of labs before downtime and offline them after? There would need to be some form of length of time online included to determine the actual use of the structure. This would make sense too as production line facilities are loathed to shut down usually as it takes time to get back up to optimal efficiency
Attach a counter field to all affected modules, increase during each downtime. When determining bonus for a new job, count all modules with counter >1, done ;)
Edit: or save current number of modules with counter > 1 after incrementing counters, so no need to run the summarizing query every time a job is installed. Would even allow to statically display the current bonus directly in the industry UI (ofc decrement in case a module goes offline). |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
440
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 15:52:00 -
[524] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:
Edit: or save current number of modules with counter > 1 after incrementing counters, so no need to run the summarizing query every time a job is installed. Would even allow to statically display the current bonus directly in the industry UI (ofc decrement in case a module goes offline).
Just save the time a module was onlined. If the time is not > some amount then don't include the module in the calculation |
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
12
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 16:27:00 -
[525] - Quote
finally, i'd rather make bunch of clicks instead of getting that summer patch where lots of stuff (POS, standings just to give example) have been fully forgotten...
I'm not playing to get headaches finding, calculating where's the best place to build and moving assets all around new eden.
@CCP : Do you never thought that, IF people need 3rd party tools to do the things the good way (not the best, but nearly the best), then your conception of it is not correct.
To say, if THIS comes out, we will HAVE TO use third party tools for our margin not to be eaten buy people doing the same but better than us.
|
Fuzzy Monkei
Monkei Buisness
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 16:37:00 -
[526] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Weaselior wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Yes, online/offline shenanigans is something we need to think about.
calculate once at downtime, use that value for the next day Could you not then online a whole raft of labs before downtime and offline them after? There would need to be some form of length of time online included to determine the actual use of the structure. This would make sense too as production line facilities are loathed to shut down usually as it takes time to get back up to optimal efficiency
Yes You could online/offline a load of labs or assembly arrays for down time to determine the bonuses for tomorrow. This sounds like an interesting useful and valid game play mechanic. What was invalid was online/offline many times durring the day so that you got the online bonus to both manufacturing and research. With the once per day calc at down time you need to choose where the bonus is, not shift it around durring the day. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7192
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 16:55:00 -
[527] - Quote
Fuzzy Monkei wrote: Yes You could online/offline a load of labs or assembly arrays for down time to determine the bonuses for tomorrow. This sounds like an interesting useful and valid game play mechanic. What was invalid was online/offline many times durring the day so that you got the online bonus to both manufacturing and research. With the once per day calc at down time you need to choose where the bonus is, not shift it around durring the day.
yeah, this is basically what i was thinking: you can only shift once per day, so you're stuck with that choice for the day. under any system you can offline all the arrays after you've installed your jobs cause cost is set on install. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Tvashnar Crendraven
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 17:07:00 -
[528] - Quote
"We experimented with faking a market, with the server acting as the seller, but while functional that approach ended up being bad gameplay (prices would rise in a system until a significant number of players moved elsewhere, which is pretty rubbish)."
This is *exactly* what you want...Unless you want all manufacturing to move to Jita and other market hubs. |
Fuzzy Monkei
Monkei Buisness
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 17:16:00 -
[529] - Quote
Tvashnar Crendraven wrote:"We experimented with faking a market, with the server acting as the seller, but while functional that approach ended up being bad gameplay (prices would rise in a system until a significant number of players moved elsewhere, which is pretty rubbish)."
This is *exactly* what you want...Unless you want all manufacturing to move to Jita and other market hubs.
No, that is horrible game play. What you want is a stable production platform. There will be lots of moving around in the month or three after the patch, but then the economy and costs will have stabelized and you won't have to move. A fairly lumpy land scape with stable prices is much better. A constant wax and wane, constant moving around, is not good for industry or industrialists. |
Kblackjack54
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
122
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 17:47:00 -
[530] - Quote
Seems CCP is proposing yet another kick in the groin for Null Sec Industrialist with a 50% hyke in fuel consumption for all Jump Drives.
Unless some clear details are forth coming on these changes and how they affect Null Sec station operations, based on the above coupled with increases in operating costs will make Null Construction an almost profitless occupation which is strange considering CCP's stated intention to increase Null Sec activity.
If they believe that Alliances are going to recruit masses of Care bears and move them into Null Sec just to mine Minerals and Ice they really do not understand much at all about the way things work out there or the environment they themselves generated with there constant tinkering with Minerals and Ice.
Resource mining is a singular occupation undertaken by a few, despised by most and preyed upon by almost everyone and painfully unprofitable if you take into account the losses sustained and the low volume low price market for what they produce in Null Sec, now shipping costs are being increased by 50% I for one will be producing for Corp only.
Most of us stopped Ice mining totally the last so called update CCP did to that aspect and it has got so bad in some areas that Heavy Water for Roquals is almost impossible to find locally when at one time along with Stront it was almost a waste product.
Zero incentive to mine Minerals and Ice in Null Sec all adds up to a very sterile market, increasing shipping costs and decreasing construction incentives means it will remain that way, I can see shopping trip roams for ships and parts to the nearest Empire hub becoming more common rather than shipping them in as happens currently, seems your going the wrong way CCP on this track, Not going to increase Null Sec utilization one iota and whoever thought it would among your lot needs to take a reality check.
|
|
Clara Trevlyn
Carry on Capsuleering
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 18:14:00 -
[531] - Quote
There is no coherent strategy here, it's all over the place.
All you needed to do for an industry expansion was finish refactoring/rewriting the POS code (is that not what you had started with all the new deployables etc), and then use that throwing a few long asked for improvements (hire out POS slots, make starting multiple identical jobs simple, etc) into the mix. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
304
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 19:21:00 -
[532] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:(This post out of order because the forum ate it first time.) Petard, meet Greyscale. Greyscale, petard.
[quote=CCP Greyscale]Added to this, we wanted to get rid of slots for a variety of reasons (importantly that they scale badly with population and act as a hard limit which distorts decision-making),]/quote]Since hard limits are bad, can we *please* visit the corporate office hard limit of 24 per station?
MDD |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 19:25:00 -
[533] - 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. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
304
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 19:25:00 -
[534] - Quote
CCP GreyscaleYes, online/offline shenanigans is something we need to think about.[/quote wrote: [quote=Querns]In this regard, perhaps use the online timestamp to "debounce" the calculation. Any array that has been online for <30 minutes, or some other time limit, does not count towards the total number of modules.
This can still be gamed, by having your assembly jobs start on Tuesday and your research jobs start on Friday (for example).
MDD |
LiKuei
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 19:35:00 -
[535] - Quote
Intent: Improve the Industry by giving the cartels a way to establish markets and have one less thing to complain about. Result: Cartel are STILL not going to use the resources they have in their areas to do anything but profit off of renters.
Intent: Shake up the Highsec Industry game to encourage (i.e. FORCE) players to work for the cartels. Result: Discouraging players that may actually consider it by making the logistics cost prohibitive.
Intent: Improve the game for all players. Result: THIS player votes for the changes with her wallet. Two more subscriptions cancelled.
Was it just Industry that did this? Nope. You killed my wallet with this and the changes to Exploration. Thanks for helping me save for my next game or vacation. |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
179
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 19:43:00 -
[536] - Quote
Faction LP Ships and Modules built from BPC.
This area of industry just got a bit more interesting. I have no experience manufaturing faction ships, but modules often have trivial material costs (most costs come from tags). I have not done the math, but if the market price is used to calculate build cost I suspect prices should rise a bit in the short term to cover that.
Need to do some research.
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 |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2748
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 19:57:00 -
[537] - Quote
I'm getting worried about the POS issue. The way the expansion sits now, POSes are being devalued, especially large POSes and all the modules that go with them. This is having an impact though the market. It is devaluating the entire PI chain. Is that really a desirable outcome?
I like the idea that the cost of using a POS array is based only on the activity at that array, without consideration of the rest of the system. That gives incentive to have a big POS with lots of labs, to spread out the work. Between that and the lack of an NPC tax, it might just be reasonable to use a POS. Maybe, just to avoid getting too absurd, there needs to be a higher lower limit to the cost.
If the above is done, then POS arrays should not be counted toward the total number of industry lines in any system. They become sort of an independent system. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7199
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 20:30:00 -
[538] - 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. Did these get posted? I didn't see them. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
84
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 21:19:00 -
[539] - Quote
Any chance of capsuleers getting an api.eveonline.com in regard to the manufacturing 'actvity' numbers, since we have public stats for the other activities (NPC kills, jumps, etc.)?
EDIT: Since it seems like the cost modifiers can change rapidly based on rapid shifts in activity (particularly post-patch), this would seem to have long-term value by players regardless of where we live in the game. |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
84
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 21:25:00 -
[540] - Quote
Does this mean that if CCP permits nullsec to put more than one outpost in a system (capped at the number of planets in a system), the cost modifers for two+ outposts in the same system would be the same? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |