|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 21 post(s) |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3404
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello people,
As mentioned during the various Fanfest panels and round tables, I'm going to list here the various changes planned to Starbases for Summer that are being discussed on the Building Better Worlds Blog feedback.
First, regarding Assembly Arrays:
- We are giving all assembly arrays a 2% material reduction to manufactured products (except for the Supercapital Assembly Array, since there is no station competition when building super capital ships).
- Advanced Assembly arrays no longer 10% have material waste. They now all have 2% material reduction like their regular counterparts.
- X-Large Assembly Array is being renamed Capital Assembly Array to better reflect what it actually does.
- Capital Assembly Array is being renamed Supercapital Assembly Array for the same reasons.
We are planning to increase cargo capacity on the following Assembly Arrays:
- Corporate Hangar Arrays: from 1,400,000 m3 to 3,000,000 m3.
- Ammunition Assembly Array: from 150,000 m3 to 1,000,000 m3.
- Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3.
- Drone Assembly Array: from 150,000 m3 to 1,000,000 m3.
- Equipment Assembly Array: from 500,000 m3 to 1,000,000 m3.
- Rapid Equipment Assembly Array: from 500,000 m3 to 1,000,000 m3.
Then, laboratories:
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 0.65). 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). |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3409
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ulrich Cadalene wrote:Are assembly arrays going to be keeping their base 0.75 manufacturing time multiplier?
Yes. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Plug in Baby wrote:Nothing about a capital component lab so lowsec can build capitals that can compete with null?
I heard such a lab with a large ME bonus was planned? Or is capital production going to null for sure now?
CCP Greyscale is working on that. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
FFGR wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: We are giving all assembly arrays a 2% material reduction to manufactured products (except for the Supercapital Assembly Array, since there is no station competition when building super capital ships).
Rapid Equipment Assembly Array and Equipment Assembly Array will now have the same ME reduction, while Rapid will make products faster.
The Rapid Equipment Assembly Array still has a ME penalty, good catch, going to update original post. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Echo Mande wrote:All in all decent, though I would also like more hangar space.
Will missile sentries get looked at (CPU use dropped to 0)? They really need it.
One thing you could also look at is the CPU and power use by the various assembly arrays. If the intent is to promote construction and shipbuilding at POSses then in my opinion these values could stand being lowered a bit.
The ship arrays could also use some changes. The small and medium arrays have fairly small hangar sizes (2M m3 for a medium) compared to the modified non-ship arrays. The ship arrays' CPU and power could also use a tweak (down) or alternately the basic ship arrays' values could be lowered and the advanced arrays could be modified to allow building of T1 and T2 ships. Note that a decent production run of marauders or HACs can easily use multiple freighterloads of materials. Fozzie mentioned making missile batteries not horrible during the stream. He said prolly not this expansion, maybe a point release, but it is on someone's radar So far their increases on cargo of pos mods have been incredibly anemic at best. We are trying to get them increased to decent levels.....
I can talk with Fozzie regarding CPU requirements on missile batteries when he's around. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lemmih AI wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- X-Large Assembly Array is being renamed Capital Assembly Array to better reflect what it actually does.
- Capital Assembly Array is being renamed Supercapital Assembly Array for the same reasons.
That sounds great except the part where the same name refers to a different item before and after an instant in time. It could be very confusing when people find older guides on the internet. If you renamed the X-Large Array to "Capital Ship Assembly Array", at least there'd be some indication that the names have changed, but even that would still be confusing. CCP Ytterbium wrote:Advanced Mobile labs: Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.75 (was 0.75). Time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.65). Time multiplier for invention: 0.5 (was 0.5). Considering that slots are going away, I really can't see anyone favoring the Advanced Mobile Lab over the Mobile lab with these stats. Maybe if copy time dropped all the way to .5 or if it had a stronger bonus to invention than the mobile lab (the whole reason for the Advanced Mobile labs was to support copying for invention, right?), it would be worth considering. Alternately, if there was an advantage to having multiple labs, it might get used, but when you just need one lab for all your research, the Mobile Lab is the clear winner.
We can add "ship" to the Capital / Supercapital Assembly Arrays to avoid confusion.
Regarding Mobile Labs, we have more changes coming in - I'll update the original post when I'm dong reading the feedback |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Is it possible that medium ship assembly array overlap the small one, and large array overlap the medium and small one ? means I can build anything starting from frigs to BS in the large ship array ?
No sorry, we like the individual capabilities of each - having them overlap would obsolete the smaller ones as soon as you have enough Starbase fittings. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:Celia Therone wrote:Are the power grid/cpu requirements for POS modules going to change now that they have infinite slots? It seems to be undecided yet.
Yes, considered doing it, but it's very undecided at the moment. It all depends if we can implement bonuses for multiple structures in Starbases or not. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:53:00 -
[9] - 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)?
The bonus is a 2% material discount, not ME level since that's going away in the new system.
The material reduction is applied per run last I checked, but we have plans to apply it to the whole job, so that blueprints with small amount of components also benefit from it. Not sure if we can squeeze this for summer though, going to ask around - thanks for the reminder. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 12:07:00 -
[10] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Then, laboratories:
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 0.65). 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).
Wouldn't it make more sense to do this instead: Research Lab: (WasMobile lab) Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.7 (was 0.75). Time multiplier for Research TE: 0.7 (was 0.75). No Copy, (was Time multiplier for copying: 0.75). No Invention (was Time multiplier for invention: 0.5). Invention lab: (was Advanced Mobile) No ME research (was Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.75). Time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.65). 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). No Invention (wast ime multiplier for invention: 0.5) That way you have more incentive to have different types of labs on your pos? And choices are easier, and you can create more named modules better in the future based on this gradient?
Our lab iteration was very close to this, but your solution is more elegant.
AUCTION SOLD TO THE SHIRTLESS BIDDER ON MY RIGHT! |
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 12:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
Updated original post with Laboratory changes.
Also specified which assembly arrays are not being affected by the Material Reduction bonus. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3423
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
Babbet Bunny wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Updated original post with Laboratory changes.
Also specified which assembly arrays are not being affected by the Material Reduction bonus. Do assembly arrays have a time bonus still? Thank you, BB
Yes, updated OP. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3424
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 17:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:Since you guys were trying to make Industry look better and smoother around the edges:
Why not make it so the POS Mods say " Y% Reduction " instead of " Multiplier of X ".
It's not so much that people cant do math, but more of consistency between everything in EVE. I think these mods are like one of the few, if anything else, bonuses that are displayed this way.
Good point, we'll change the description to be more consistent with ship bonuses. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3425
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:09:00 -
[14] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train.
But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired!
Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3437
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:15:00 -
[15] - Quote
mynnna wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. Wanna change some more numbers and do a balancing pass on POS guns and buff their stats a bit, since they haven't been touched since an era when a dreadnaught had less EHP than a cruiser can get today? e: This goes especially for scan res. In context of such a change I'd propose massive increases to scan res, on the order of tenfold, but perhaps a corresponding increase in the automatic lock delay as well. That way an unmanned POS still takes its sweet time doing anything, but a manned POS is able to swiftly react to a changing combat landscape. You've got that huge tower there, why are its targeting arrays so bad?
That's going to take quite some time indeed, but that's why we keep CCP Fozzie chained in the basement. I'll promise him some raw meat if he looks at it at some point, that should cheer him up.
We'll discuss that point for sure, but we are not certain this will make it at the same time than the main bulk of Industry changes though. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
686
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 10:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:CCP Ytterbium 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)? The bonus is a 2% material discount, not ME level since that's going away in the new system. The material reduction is applied per run last I checked, but we have plans to apply it to the whole job, so that blueprints with small amount of components also benefit from it. Not sure if we can squeeze this for summer though, going to ask around - thanks for the reminder. Oh god, can't believe I missed this. Material discounts at job rather than run level would be a major, major change. (I like it. But it would require a rework of a whole bunch of tools to take run numbers into account as well. And I'm not /sure/ about how it affects bpc vs bpo. I'm generally in favor.)
Confirming the new Industry will not do any material rounding until AFTER we multiply by the number of runs, meaning material efficiency discounts due to facility / teams / skills / blueprints / whatever may produce slightly better results with multiple runs. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
688
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 17:09:00 -
[17] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:Max Kolonko wrote:[quote=Marcus Iunius Brutus]Wait - does it mean what i think this means?
I have bpo that need 10 pieces of tritanium I get it to me5% so single run still needs 10*trit Will 2 run job require 20 or 19 units if trit? Roundup(10*.95)*2=20 Or Roundup(10*2*.95)=19
Yes, 2 jobs will require 19 pieces of trit. And BTW it's Round not Roundup. How do we know it's round() and not roundup()? I didn't catch a definitive statement... There's also the option that it's rounddown(). I believe that's been mentioned in another context in the research blog thread.
So round is misleading, we will be doing a CEIL() aka rounding up. If you need 14.1 after all the runs and material efficiency is multiplied out then it will be 15. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3469
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 12:18:00 -
[18] - Quote
Belinda HwaFang wrote:Greetings.
I notice that the Experimental Laboratory is conspicuous in its absence in this thread.
Does this mean that all stats on it are staying the same and that I can run as many concurrent reversing jobs on it as I have skills for (with the removal of slots)?
Thanks,
Fang
Indeed, the Experimental Lab is not changing at all. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3477
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 10:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
Rowells wrote:So this is getting moved to Crius as well right?
Indeed. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3520
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
Maxdig wrote:Any info on re-balance the cargo sizes a bit more of POS Assembly Arrays? Seen it asked about 5 times now with no response... 3 million m3 on the Component Assembly Array is not enough...
We aren't planning on adjusting cargo capacity further for now unfortunately.
On the bright side however, we are working on ways to remove offline Control Towers. It's still in early design and with our team bandwidth being quite full for Crius, this will have to wait after that, but it's definitely on the menu. |
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3547
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 13:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
Erasmus Phoenix wrote:Is the anchoring IV for starbase defense management thing still happening? Can't find it in the patch notes.
It's not for Kronos, this will go live with the main bulk of the industry changes after that. |
|
|
|
|