Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 21 post(s) |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:51:00 -
[121] - 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 -
[122] - 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. |
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2821
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:53:00 -
[123] - Quote
Sigras wrote:2% material bonus isnt enough of a reason for you?
How is it that there are so many people who are terrible at math and still do industry?
This.
If your markup is 7% (not uncommon on tech 2 cruisers), saving 2% on materials increases that to 9%. That's actually a 28.5% increase. Set the universe on fire - then sell the survivors ash. 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. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
619
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 12:00:00 -
[124] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Echo Mande wrote:Will missile sentries get looked at (CPU use dropped to 0)? They really need it. I can talk with Fozzie regarding CPU requirements on missile batteries when he's around.
Is there any word on a proper starbase weapon rebalance, to bring them in line with modern ship stats? Fozzie hinted at this a year ago but we've had nothing since:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3018715#post3018715 |
Babbet Bunny
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 12:04:00 -
[125] - Quote
Please change how the per run cost reduction works. Make it per run and not per hour of run.
At the current per hour discount model it is cheaper to do large production in an NPC station than a POS. Even with the 2% material discount.
Using all the assumptions from the example: 200M ship, 0.25% global production, 0.75 system equipment, 4 hours runs each, 10% tax in the NPC station and add: ME10 requires 180M minerals. 0.75% Sales tax, 0.75% Broker Fee, 60k/hour of POS fuel
The total profit benefit for a POS vs NPC station at 1 run is 1.9%, Five runs 1.3%, ten runs 0.5%, and fifteen runs -0.2%..
I.e. current new math 5 runs at a POS cost 5% more per run than at a NPC station. 10 runs 11% more per run each. More than 15 four hour runs and you are losing the profit boost of a POS.
The production requires 60 hours in a station and only 42 in a POS and unless EVE is your job probably make it to a trade hub at about the same time. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 12:07:00 -
[126] - 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 -
[127] - Quote
Updated original post with Laboratory changes.
Also specified which assembly arrays are not being affected by the Material Reduction bonus. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1379
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 12:18:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
That would be fantastic
Please try to make it happen :) GRRR Goons |
Oxide Ammar
115
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 12:42:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium, me and behalf all industrialist we are thanking you all for hard work you are doing for the industrial aspect of this game...but I have question that is killing me and I wish you to answer it. CCP already stated before they can't touch POS code due to implications of SOV and how it's old to be modified from what I understand, but apparently since you started buffing POS you did:
1- modify the functionality of the arrays ( Medium Intensive Refinery to Compression Array) 2- modify the name of arrays. (labs names, capital assembly arrays, Compression array) 3- changing the fuel consumption to fixed figures (previously it was based on the online arrays) 4- modifying/removing the stat values of arrays and labs ( ex. cargo hold, ME/TE values) 5- ability to change PWG/CPU values of the towers and all arrays.
So, what you can't do to POS code ? the ability change the UI to make it something similar to the new UI of manufacturing ? |
Babbet Bunny
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 12:58:00 -
[130] - Quote
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 |
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
619
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:01:00 -
[131] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP Ytterbium, me and behalf all industrialist we are thanking you all for hard work you are doing for the industrial aspect of this game...but I have question that is killing me and I wish you to answer it. CCP already stated before they can't touch POS code due to implications of SOV and how it's old to be modified from what I understand, but apparently since you started buffing POS you did:
1- modify the functionality of the arrays ( Medium Intensive Refinery to Compression Array) 2- modify the name of arrays. (labs names, capital assembly arrays, Compression array) 3- changing the fuel consumption to fixed figures (previously it was based on the online arrays) 4- modifying/removing the stat values of arrays and labs ( ex. cargo hold, ME/TE values) 5- ability to change PWG/CPU values of the towers and all arrays.
So, what you can't do to POS code ? the ability change the UI to make it something similar to the new UI of manufacturing ?
Technically they can do anything they want. However the main problem is that the old starbase code is poorly documented, and there are many pitfalls where changing one thing might affect something initially unrelated. For example, changing the rules on anchoring starbase structures might affect anchorable warp bubbles or outpost upgrades in unexpected ways. This means that certain changes carry a high degree of risk.
The majority of changes made recently to starbases have been one of three things:
A) Changing stats like cargo capacity or grid / cpu. This is simple and works the same way as rebalancing ships - there's no code to alter, just some values in a table.
B) Linking existing code to other objects, such as when they took the existing renaming function and allowed it to be used by more structures. The compression array would have also re-used some code written for the Rorqual, with some tweaks.
C) Redesigned other systems that starbase code connects to, especially industry. In the case of assembly arrays, labs, etc, all the majority of this code was re-factored by the industry project already.
As for what they'd rather not change... I'd say that anything connected to the core starbase mechanics - anchoring structures, how they interact with objects on grid or in-system, force fields, etc. That's why you won't see modular POS until there's a full re-factoring to starbase code - which is a major project akin to the upcoming Industry one. |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1890
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:06:00 -
[132] - Quote
Can we get another option to remove abandoned POSs, besides a wardec and 8 hours of pew pew? I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Oxide Ammar
115
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:21:00 -
[133] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can we get another option to remove abandoned POSs, besides a wardec and 8 hours of pew pew?
It's strange post to come from RvB that bashing POS being considered as service you provide, but anyway..they said in the Fanfest (it was answer to question like yours) they will be making CONCORD to fire at any offline POS with no charter in its cargo to clear up the moon for anyone to use them. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3174
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:24:00 -
[134] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can we get another option to remove abandoned POSs, besides a wardec and 8 hours of pew pew? It's strange post to come from RvB that bashing POS being considered as service you provide, but anyway..they said in the Fanfest (it was answer to question like yours) they will be making CONCORD to fire at any offline POS with no charter in its cargo to clear up the moon for anyone to use them.
???????????
Not at any panel I was at.
Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1890
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:27:00 -
[135] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can we get another option to remove abandoned POSs, besides a wardec and 8 hours of pew pew? It's strange post to come from RvB that bashing POS being considered as service you provide, but anyway..they said in the Fanfest (it was answer to question like yours) they will be making CONCORD to fire at any offline POS with no charter in its cargo to clear up the moon for anyone to use them. ??????????? Not at any panel I was at. Yes, I never seen or heard of that at any panel either...
*Citation Needed* I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3174
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:30:00 -
[136] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can we get another option to remove abandoned POSs, besides a wardec and 8 hours of pew pew? It's strange post to come from RvB that bashing POS being considered as service you provide, but anyway..they said in the Fanfest (it was answer to question like yours) they will be making CONCORD to fire at any offline POS with no charter in its cargo to clear up the moon for anyone to use them. ??????????? Not at any panel I was at. Yes, I never seen or heard of that at any panel either... *Citation Needed*
I did make a suggestion about making them free to fire at, with no charters. But that was just me as me. Nothing more. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1890
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:34:00 -
[137] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can we get another option to remove abandoned POSs, besides a wardec and 8 hours of pew pew? It's strange post to come from RvB that bashing POS being considered as service you provide, but anyway..they said in the Fanfest (it was answer to question like yours) they will be making CONCORD to fire at any offline POS with no charter in its cargo to clear up the moon for anyone to use them. ??????????? Not at any panel I was at. Yes, I never seen or heard of that at any panel either... *Citation Needed* I did make a suggestion about making them free to fire at, with no charters. But that was just me as me. Nothing more. I'd like to see the hacking mini game tossed into that picture...
A failed attempt locks it down for "X" hours... I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Oxide Ammar
115
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:37:00 -
[138] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Can we get another option to remove abandoned POSs, besides a wardec and 8 hours of pew pew? It's strange post to come from RvB that bashing POS being considered as service you provide, but anyway..they said in the Fanfest (it was answer to question like yours) they will be making CONCORD to fire at any offline POS with no charter in its cargo to clear up the moon for anyone to use them. ??????????? Not at any panel I was at. Yes, I never seen or heard of that at any panel either... *Citation Needed* I did make a suggestion about making them free to fire at, with no charters. But that was just me as me. Nothing more.
Didn't they said they will look into it, or they will implement that ? I must be confusing then...Sorry Azami Nevinyrall I think you have to sit for 8 hrs to do it. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
966
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:38:00 -
[139] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Sigras wrote:2% material bonus isnt enough of a reason for you?
How is it that there are so many people who are terrible at math and still do industry? This. If your markup is 7% (not uncommon on tech 2 cruisers), saving 2% on materials increases that to 9%. That's actually a 28.5% increase.
Because POS fuel is free?
1) 2% reduction is not alway 2% reduction because of rounding.
2) A small POS burning 100M a month. 2% savings means you have to turn at least 5 billion a month just to break even... but then your jobs, materials and BP are at risk.
3) upgrade to a large so you don't have to cancel all jobs and lose materials on every war dec, and if you aren't turning 20 billion a month, the 2% isn't covering fuel costs... and jobs, materials and BPs are still at risk.
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
966
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:41:00 -
[140] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP Ytterbium, me and behalf all industrialist we are thanking you all for hard work you are doing for the industrial aspect of this game...but I have question that is killing me and I wish you to answer it. CCP already stated before they can't touch POS code due to implications of SOV and how it's old to be modified from what I understand, but apparently since you started buffing POS you did:
1- modify the functionality of the arrays ( Medium Intensive Refinery to Compression Array) 2- modify the name of arrays. (labs names, capital assembly arrays, Compression array) 3- changing the fuel consumption to fixed figures (previously it was based on the online arrays) 4- modifying/removing the stat values of arrays and labs ( ex. cargo hold, ME/TE values) 5- ability to change PWG/CPU values of the towers and all arrays.
So, what you can't do to POS code ? the ability change the UI to make it something similar to the new UI of manufacturing ?
My guess is these are database entries, not actual computer code. |
|
Rabbit P
Nuwa Foundation Fraternity.
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:47:00 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Updated original post with Laboratory changes.
Also specified which assembly arrays are not being affected by the Material Reduction bonus.
in the new iteration , apart from the rename of the mobile lab you only list out the Research labs has Time multiplier for ME,TE but not copying and invention.
it seem in the summer release, Research labs only can do research, but can't do copying and invention Design labs is for copying and invention but can't research RE.
am i right?
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3423
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:48:00 -
[142] - 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. |
|
Valterra Craven
224
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:54:00 -
[143] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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!
Damnit... I have never been so conflicted about being listened too ever.....
On one hand I was listened too!
On the other hand I can't argue that CCP doesn't listen to me anymore!
Crap :X
Thanks <3
|
Kendra Zane
Working From Home
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:58:00 -
[144] - Quote
I like the new lab names. Now there's a reason to have more than 1! |
Danny Centauri
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
86
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 13:59:00 -
[145] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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 Laboratory has been renamed Research Laboratory. Advanced Mobile Laboratory has been renamed Design Laboratory. Hyasyoda Mobile Laboratory has been renamed Hyasyoda Laboratory. Research labs: Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.7 (was 0.75). Time multiplier for Research TE: 0.7 (was 0.75).
Design labs: Time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.65). Time multiplier for invention: 0.5 (was 0.5).
Hyasyoda labs: Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.65 (was 0.75). Time multiplier for Research TE: 0.65 (was 0.75). [/list]
Hey Ytterbium, thanks for taking on feedback think the lab names may still need a bit of work. IGÇÖm not the most eloquent person put on the planet but these would be my suggestions: Efficiency Research Laboratory Manipulation and Replication Laboratory (possibly too long needs work)
Also as you probably guessed from what I quoted just want to bring back up the cargo capacity issues. The current capacities are adding the downside that large scale manufacturing of capital components for example isnGÇÖt possible. I was building only 6 Obelisks a month and had to install jobs 3 times a month in order to do so just due to the limitations on storage space.
An array can build up to 113 capital cargo bays in a single run, 170 after your proposed changes. This is awesome for me as only have to install jobs twice a month, but really the cap should be in line with a max job length of 30 days. This cap would be hit somewhere in the region of 6,300,000 m3 this may seem a bit excessive but there shouldnGÇÖt be an advantage of longer single job time possibilities in station than there is in a POS.
Also a final question is the 2% material bonus after all other bonus's or before. Just wondering how POS bonuses will stack so is it Material Usage = (Material base x (100% - ME percentage) )* 0.98 or Material usage = Material base x (100% - ME Percentage - POS Percentage)? EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
311
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 14:18:00 -
[146] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Mobile Laboratory has been renamed Research Laboratory. Advanced Mobile Laboratory has been renamed Design Laboratory. Hyasyoda Mobile Laboratory has been renamed Hyasyoda Laboratory.
Research labs: Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.7 (was 0.75). Time multiplier for Research TE: 0.7 (was 0.75).
Design labs: Time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.65). Time multiplier for invention: 0.5 (was 0.5).
Hyasyoda labs: Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.65 (was 0.75). Time multiplier for Research TE: 0.65 (was 0.75).
The Hyasyoda lab is presently bonused for invention (20% more invention slots than the standard mobile lab). Yes, I know slots are going away. But you're also nerfing invention by removing all invention ability from the Hyasyoda.
MDD |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
839
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 14:26:00 -
[147] - Quote
So if Im understanding this, then the new -4 -4 for invention is only going to cost 4% or now 2% over the base costs? If so I really like this |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1379
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 14:38:00 -
[148] - Quote
Will you take a look at manufacturing time? Advanced Labs currently take much longer to build. GRRR Goons |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
150
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 14:42:00 -
[149] - Quote
The idea of having additional bonuses on a POS only if you have multiple units of one type of array seems messy and bit of a bodge to me. Wouldn't it be better, for example, to introduce a new skillbook that POS users have to learn to gain a bonus of some description, either material or tax based, to make POS use over NPC station use a little more favourable. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
966
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 14:59:00 -
[150] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Slap a last minute hack in to cover up poor design. That always works out so well.
You need to take a huge step back and reassess the design and the entire scaling fee structure based on solar system usage instead of specific facility usage.
The industry changes are such a jumbled mess. It is like the car heading toward the cliff, but we can't slow down and think about it because the date is set.
I can't tell you how many software projects I've been on that were in this exact situation. Major mistakes made in design, but no one want to admit that, and we can't lose face by saying "we screwed up" and need some more time to rework this.
So.... hack.
Slap in a ME bonus to building at a POS in HOPES someone will use one, now that the reason people used them has been removed.
Slap in some kind-a hack so people will use more than one of each type of facility, now that we removed the resaon that existed....
And don't get me started on the hate and discontent the ME changes are going to create amongst newer players. Really screwed the pooch on THAT one. It would have been SOOOO much better to change ME to a float, and hide it behind the UI. Show whole %, but that converts to fraction ME behind the scenes.
You really, really, really need to stop hacking last minute fixes over bad design, stop, ask for an extra month, and REDESIGN!
Change ME to a float, poof, fixed. Remove specific slots, and convert number of slots to max optimal concurrent, then charge an overuse fee based on how much over max optimal the facility is. overuse fee = max (current-optimal, 0) / optimal. Optimal can then scale to total universal job hours.
So much easier to understand, predict, doesn't break existing functionality, or the mad scramble to alter bonuses, prevent T2 BPO production changes, etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |