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
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). |
|
Rabbit P
Nuwa Foundation Fraternity.
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
after announced the release in 3/6 is called Kronos, why the title of the thread is still [Summer 2014] Starbase tweaks , but not [Kronos] Starbase tweaks ?
because those changes still in early process and not sure will be deplon+Öed in 3/6 (Kronos) or 19/8 (Crius) ? |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
621
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
Why are the Advanced Mobile Labs slower at ME research and Invention than the standard mobile labs? Fleet Bookmarks New Gravimetric Sites Med Clones 2.0 |
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
455
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
damn DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/
EVE Buddy Invite - https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=047203f1-4124-42a1-b36f-39ca8ae5d6e2&action=buddy
|
Seraphina Amaranth
Hedion University Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
So is there any incentive to run more than one of each type of lab/array any more? |
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
132
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....
MODULAR STARBASES!!
There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases. Dear lord, please help me deal with the insufferable.... |
MasterMag
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
I know you're also going to release a lowsec-only capital component construction array, but will it be able to stay competitive with stations after the increase in price you are forcing fuel blocks to go through? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7285
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
Seraphina Amaranth wrote:So is there any incentive to run more than one of each type of lab/array any more? that you're using them as storage :v: Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7285
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
Also Greyscale mentioned a lowsec-only component assembly array: any details on that? Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3169
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
To copy over someone elses idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4552105#post4552105
It's an interesting looking one.
tl;dr:
Apply a reduction to the cost of all jobs stated in an array. Apply a penalty for every job started in an array.
So you get a 0.9 multiplier on cost for running at a pos, then a 1.01*number of active jobs in that structure. (if it knows that)
Means having multiple structures has a reasonable benefit. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
The strong point of an advanced lab used to be 3x more copy slots than mobile lab, with the slots gone I think it might need additional buff. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5777
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
Wow. Interesting, to say the least. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Ulrich Cadalene
The Red Circle Inc.
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:33:00 -
[13] - Quote
Are assembly arrays going to be keeping their base 0.75 manufacturing time multiplier? |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1250
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
If you want people to make use of the advanced manufacturing arrays you need to give them more than one slot. They need the equivalent of their normal variants.
You don't build T2 ships one at a time, you build them by the dozen or more. Installing 20+ simultainious ship-building jobs is not a rare occurrence.
Edit: Also, 2% barely justifies the 600m isk/month cost a worthwhile POS takes to run IMO. Especially with infinite slots available in stations which are risk-free. |
SKINE DMZ
S U P R E M E - M A T H E M A T I C S A Band Apart.
463
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:43:00 -
[15] - Quote
Awesome, little unrelated but some extra cargo and slots on the Personal Hanger Array would be nice I disagree
RAWR IM TOUGH |
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:If you want people to make use of the advanced manufacturing arrays you need to give them more than one slot. They need the equivalent of their normal variants.
There are no more slots in assembly arrays, just like in stations... With current information small POS is all you need for large scale manufacturing.
|
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1250
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:49:00 -
[17] - Quote
Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:If you want people to make use of the advanced manufacturing arrays you need to give them more than one slot. They need the equivalent of their normal variants. There are no more slots in assembly arrays, just like in stations... With current information small POS is all you need for large scale manufacturing.
That completely skipped my consideration. Good point. Thanks. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
.
Are we getting our supply management skill refunded?
1,500,000 m3 on a CAA means you can put on max 2 jobs before you have to travel to the array to play mineral Tetris
That is more like a KMA than help
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
3169
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 14:50:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:If you want people to make use of the advanced manufacturing arrays you need to give them more than one slot. They need the equivalent of their normal variants.
You don't build T2 ships one at a time, you build them by the dozen or more. Installing 20+ simultainious ship-building jobs is not a rare occurrence.
Edit: Also, 2% barely justifies the 600m isk/month cost a worthwhile POS takes to run IMO. Especially with infinite slots available in stations which are risk-free.
There are no slots any more. Right now, you can install as many jobs into one of these as you want to. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
771
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:02:00 -
[20] - Quote
Pos fix when . |
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
435
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:03:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3. I don't think this is sufficient.
Is there any particular issue you are trying to avoid by keeping the storage on these arrays small? Wouldn't it be better just to make them big enough so that they aren't a massive pain to use?
|
Plug in Baby
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:04:00 -
[22] - Quote
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? This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:05:00 -
[23] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3. I don't think this is sufficient. Is there any particular issue you are trying to avoid by keeping the storage on these arrays small? Wouldn't it be better just to make them big enough so that they aren't a massive pain to use?
ME0 Erebus with crappy component BP is right under 55,000,000m3. I suggest we start there !! 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 :)
|
FFGR
November 17th Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:05:00 -
[24] - Quote
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. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:06:00 -
[25] - 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?
That will have a miner effect compared to the 10% mineral advantage null will have on lowsec, plus the 5% ME for the amarr stations 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 :)
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
435
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:11:00 -
[26] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3. I don't think this is sufficient. Is there any particular issue you are trying to avoid by keeping the storage on these arrays small? Wouldn't it be better just to make them big enough so that they aren't a massive pain to use? ME0 Erebus with crappy component BP is right under 55,000,000m3. I suggest we start there !! You are going to love making that with 5 run BPCs. |
Bakuhz
Comando Imperiale Horny Empire
142
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:11:00 -
[27] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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).
So how about upscaling the ammount of slots in the labs aswell to compete with the no slots in station? if ownign a starbase and producing stuff within own resources we should get a bit more then those patetic amateur sized research and inventions slots now!!!!
http://rakah.griefwatch.net/?p=pilot&pilot=%3CBakuhz
Recruiting PvP minded pilot's new pilot friendly teachers available in various timezones |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
489
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:13:00 -
[28] - Quote
Has there been any internal discussion about how scaling costs will work in a POS that can be shared?
A reminder -- I had an excellent suggestion on how to scale the costs without murdering the server. tl;dr: count the total number of structures for the manufacturing type owned by your corp in the system and scale based on that.
Regarding component assembly arrays, if there is a limiting factor on their maximum size (pos fuel? T2 comps?) perhaps make a separate capital component array for building cap comps. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
Bakuhz wrote: So how about upscaling the ammount of slots in the labs aswell to compete with the no slots in station? if ownign a starbase and producing stuff within own resources we should get a bit more then those patetic amateur sized research and inventions slots now!!!!
They removed ALL slots
That means NOTHING has slots
Did I mention, NO SLOTS
NONE ON ANYTHING
NO MORE SLOTS 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 :)
|
Borsek
A.A.A Trapped.
181
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:17:00 -
[30] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Why are the Advanced Mobile Labs slower at ME research and Invention than the standard mobile labs?
Advanced labs are for mass copying, normal labs are for research and invention iirc. |
|
Plug in Baby
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:17:00 -
[31] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote: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? That will have a miner effect compared to the 10% mineral advantage null will have on lowsec, plus the 5% ME for the amarr stations
That is the point the advantage of null refine and ME bonus was supposed to be able to offset by using a POS arrray in low. I cant find a source for this but I'll try and link it when I find it.
Without one there is no way lowsec can compete with 200-300m cheaper caps per unit from null for the small price of a jumping them to lowsec to sell. Unless there are some amazing teams to give a huge bonus, but there is no reason to think they wouldn't also be used in null. This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
Borsek wrote:Swiftstrike1 wrote:Why are the Advanced Mobile Labs slower at ME research and Invention than the standard mobile labs? Advanced labs are for mass copying, normal labs are for research and invention iirc.
Drop and advanced and a Hyasoda and BLAM - done - almost as good as a 70bil caldari T3 station 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 :)
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3409
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:21:00 -
[33] - Quote
Ulrich Cadalene wrote:Are assembly arrays going to be keeping their base 0.75 manufacturing time multiplier?
Yes. |
|
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:22:00 -
[34] - Quote
Plug in Baby wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote: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? That will have a miner effect compared to the 10% mineral advantage null will have on lowsec, plus the 5% ME for the amarr stations That is the point the advantage of null refine and ME bonus was supposed to be able to offset by using a POS arrray in low. I cant find a source for this but I'll try and link it when I find it. Without one there is no way lowsec can compete with 200-300m cheaper caps per unit from null for the small price of a jumping them to lowsec to sell. Unless there are some amazing teams to give a huge bonus, but there is no reason to think they wouldn't also be used in null.
Low sec has a POS array that is better than high sec, and worse than null sec 70Bil minnie station, all assembly arrays are the same ME modifier
so null > low > high sec I am pretty sure that is where it is supposed to be..
Do you want a low sec only assembly array with an extra 10% ME to make up for the better mineral refine rate in null?? 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 :)
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
436
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:22:00 -
[35] - Quote
Querns wrote:Regarding component assembly arrays, if there is a limiting factor on their maximum size (pos fuel? T2 comps?) perhaps make a separate capital component array for building cap comps. Or allow us to build Capital Components at a Capital Assembly Array? That would be much more useable from a capital producers point of view. |
Ulrich Cadalene
The Red Circle Inc.
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:24:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ulrich Cadalene wrote:Are assembly arrays going to be keeping their base 0.75 manufacturing time multiplier? Yes.
Thanks. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:24:00 -
[37] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Querns wrote:Regarding component assembly arrays, if there is a limiting factor on their maximum size (pos fuel? T2 comps?) perhaps make a separate capital component array for building cap comps. Or allow us to build Capital Components at a Capital Assembly Array? That would be much more useable from a capital producers point of view.
Will you have my babies 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 :)
|
MasterMag
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:26:00 -
[38] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Plug in Baby wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote: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? That will have a miner effect compared to the 10% mineral advantage null will have on lowsec, plus the 5% ME for the amarr stations That is the point the advantage of null refine and ME bonus was supposed to be able to offset by using a POS arrray in low. I cant find a source for this but I'll try and link it when I find it. Without one there is no way lowsec can compete with 200-300m cheaper caps per unit from null for the small price of a jumping them to lowsec to sell. Unless there are some amazing teams to give a huge bonus, but there is no reason to think they wouldn't also be used in null. Low sec has a POS array that is better than high sec, and worse than null sec 70Bil minnie station, all assembly arrays are the same ME modifier so null > low > high sec I am pretty sure that is where it is supposed to be.. Do you want a low sec only assembly array with an extra 10% ME to make up for the better mineral refine rate in null??
Would be nice that the lowsec capital component array could offset the fuel costs and still remain mostly competitive with nullsec, because it is a lot more vulnerable than your one-time seventy billion isk investment secured snugly in your blue donut. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1378
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:34:00 -
[39] - Quote
i second the build cap components in cap ship array proposal thingie.
make it so ! GRRR Goons |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:39:00 -
[40] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:i second the build cap components in cap ship array proposal thingie.
make it so !
Wait, hold on.....NO
CAA has the 2% ME bonus 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
3169
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:42:00 -
[41] - Quote
Plug in Baby wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote: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? That will have a miner effect compared to the 10% mineral advantage null will have on lowsec, plus the 5% ME for the amarr stations That is the point the advantage of null refine and ME bonus was supposed to be able to offset by using a POS arrray in low. I cant find a source for this but I'll try and link it when I find it. Without one there is no way lowsec can compete with 200-300m cheaper caps per unit from null for the small price of a jumping them to lowsec to sell. Unless there are some amazing teams to give a huge bonus, but there is no reason to think they wouldn't also be used in null.
It was mentioned in the Industry panel. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
311
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:45:00 -
[42] - Quote
Querns wrote:Has there been any internal discussion about how scaling costs will work in a POS that can be shared? A reminder -- I had an excellent suggestion on how to scale the costs without murdering the server. tl;dr: count the total number of structures for the manufacturing type owned by your corp in the system and scale based on that. I believe there was some follow-on discussion about avoiding obvious exploits. For example:
- Only count online modules
- Only count those online modules which were online (and have remained so since) at some appropriate point-in-time in the past.
One suggestion was to count the online modules at downtime. That seems to mean that the module isn't usable until "tomorrow" (depending upon where you live on Earth). Probably not a problem for ship builders, but will surely annoy module & ammo builders.
Another suggestion was to record the module's "last onlined" timestamp, and then at the time of job installation count the ones which were online at least as long as the proposed job takes (with some floor/ceiling limits). This removes the downtime calculation for all systems, replacing it with a calculation for each job. That's surely more calculations, but it doesn't impede startup, and it places the calculation penalty squarely on the beneficiary (installer).
MDD |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
311
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:47:00 -
[43] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Bakuhz wrote: So how about upscaling the ammount of slots in the labs aswell to compete with the no slots in station? if ownign a starbase and producing stuff within own resources we should get a bit more then those patetic amateur sized research and inventions slots now!!!!
They removed ALL slots That means NOTHING has slots Did I mention, NO SLOTS NONE ON ANYTHING NO MORE SLOTS Except offices. Apparently slots there (24 per station) are still ok.
MDD |
Echo Mande
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:48:00 -
[44] - Quote
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. |
Plug in Baby
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:52:00 -
[45] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Low sec has a POS array that is better than high sec, and worse than null sec 70Bil minnie station, all assembly arrays are the same ME modifier
so null > low > high sec I am pretty sure that is where it is supposed to be..
I should be happy that low sec will outperform highsec at building caps? Great!
Uncle Shrimpa wrote: Do you want a low sec only assembly array with an extra 10% ME to make up for the better mineral refine rate in null??
erm..yes? It is pretty simple if lowsec becomes ~15% less efficient than null they may as well get rid of lowsec cap production.
The idea that 70bn is some how a relevant amount of ISK is laughable. If that 70bn did nothing but give the bonus i.e. no other value docking, or safety or anything just a bonus it would repay itself after 70 / 15%*1.5bn = ~300 caps, which is about a year for me, pretty awesome ROI.
So the station bonus could realistically be a very good investment for 1 player, never-mind an entire alliance. This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:52:00 -
[46] - Quote
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..... 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
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:55:00 -
[47] - Quote
Plug in Baby wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Low sec has a POS array that is better than high sec, and worse than null sec 70Bil minnie station, all assembly arrays are the same ME modifier
so null > low > high sec I am pretty sure that is where it is supposed to be.. I should be happy that low sec will outperform highsec at building caps? Great! Uncle Shrimpa wrote: Do you want a low sec only assembly array with an extra 10% ME to make up for the better mineral refine rate in null??
erm..yes? It is pretty simple if lowsec becomes ~15% less efficient than null they may as well get rid of lowsec cap production. The idea that 70bn is some how a relevant amount of ISK is laughable. If that 70bn did nothing but give the bonus i.e. no other value docking, or safety or anything just a bonus it would repay itself after 70 / 15%*1.5bn = ~300 caps, which is about a year for me, pretty awesome ROI. So the station bonus could realistically be a very good investment for 1 player, never-mind an entire alliance.
but there is risk
If you refine at minnie station, you ahve to haul - refine - freighter to amarr station to get max bonus - there is a **** ton of risk for that, not to mention haulign expense, both in isotopes to get it there and time to freighter it
If you refine at amarr, the 10% drops to 3%, so the total of 8% isn't bad
It isn't a one all be all answer, but that advantage does have some severe risks associated with it
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 :)
|
Alabia
FORTHEWINNER
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:55:00 -
[48] - Quote
Will you have to pay tax when using a assembly array on a starbase? If so how will that tax be calculated? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7286
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 15:55:00 -
[49] - Quote
If you are concerned about the storage/grid ratio of the component array: just like double or quadruple the capacity and the associated fitting. Presto, many problems solved without any problems like an all-CAA storage pos. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
MasterMag
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:01:00 -
[50] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Plug in Baby wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Low sec has a POS array that is better than high sec, and worse than null sec 70Bil minnie station, all assembly arrays are the same ME modifier
so null > low > high sec I am pretty sure that is where it is supposed to be.. I should be happy that low sec will outperform highsec at building caps? Great! Uncle Shrimpa wrote: Do you want a low sec only assembly array with an extra 10% ME to make up for the better mineral refine rate in null??
erm..yes? It is pretty simple if lowsec becomes ~15% less efficient than null they may as well get rid of lowsec cap production. The idea that 70bn is some how a relevant amount of ISK is laughable. If that 70bn did nothing but give the bonus i.e. no other value docking, or safety or anything just a bonus it would repay itself after 70 / 15%*1.5bn = ~300 caps, which is about a year for me, pretty awesome ROI. So the station bonus could realistically be a very good investment for 1 player, never-mind an entire alliance. but there is risk If you refine at minnie station, you ahve to haul - refine - freighter to amarr station to get max bonus - there is a **** ton of risk for that, not to mention haulign expense, both in isotopes to get it there and time to freighter it If you refine at amarr, the 10% drops to 3%, so the total of 8% isn't bad It isn't a one all be all answer, but that advantage does have some severe risks associated with it
Risk for what, your cyno frigate? |
|
Plug in Baby
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:03:00 -
[51] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote: but there is risk
Yeah there is some risk, all be it small in blued up regions. My point is that null could be better without making lowsec construction impossible. Bear in mind margins are typically <10% on capitals.
It's not a trade off it won't be like:
'oh well low isn't as good but you have it easy there are less risks so you make less ISK, that is fair'
it will be:
'oh you can't possibly build in low because it will cost more to build than market price from null'
It is fine if that is what CCP want, but I was under the impression they wanted to keep some construction in low from the fanfest discussion. This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main. |
Lemmih AI
Nexus Fleet Inc. Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:04:00 -
[52] - Quote
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. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:07:00 -
[53] - Quote
Plug in Baby wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote: but there is risk
Yeah there is some risk, albeit small in blued up regions. My point is that null could be better without making lowsec construction impossible. Bear in mind margins are typically <10% on capitals. It's not a trade off it won't be like: 'oh well low isn't as good but you have it easy there are less risks so you make less ISK, that is fair' it will be: 'oh you can't possibly build in low because it will cost more to build than market price from null' It is fine if that is what CCP want, but I was under the impression they wanted to keep some construction in low from the fanfest discussion.
What if you live in catch, Tenerfis, stain??
Not everyone lives in deklein or Branch 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 :)
|
Plug in Baby
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:12:00 -
[54] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote: What if you live in catch, Tenerfis, stain??
Not everyone lives in deklein or Branch
That isn't really my point, I'm not on some anti-null mission here, I am just stating the facts. There are plenty of safe regions with no slot limits and enough pilots to produce caps at a reduced cost to drive the prices.
Currently that reduced cost will be greater than the profit margin on the product.
If you accept those two as fact, even with slightly increased in jump cost it really is the obvious conclusion. I'm not say all of null are going to benefit, I'm not saying all of null is some perfectly safe heaven. This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main. |
Lemmih AI
Nexus Fleet Inc. Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:15:00 -
[55] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:Querns wrote:Has there been any internal discussion about how scaling costs will work in a POS that can be shared? A reminder -- I had an excellent suggestion on how to scale the costs without murdering the server. tl;dr: count the total number of structures for the manufacturing type owned by your corp in the system and scale based on that. I believe there was some follow-on discussion about avoiding obvious exploits. For example: - Only count online modules
- Only count those online modules which were online (and have remained so since) at some appropriate point-in-time in the past.
One suggestion was to count the online modules at downtime. That seems to mean that the module isn't usable until "tomorrow" (depending upon where you live on Earth). Probably not a problem for ship builders, but will surely annoy module & ammo builders. Another suggestion was to record the module's "last onlined" timestamp, and then at the time of job installation count the ones which were online at least as long as the proposed job takes (with some floor/ceiling limits). This removes the downtime calculation for all systems, replacing it with a calculation for each job. That's surely more calculations, but it doesn't impede startup, and it places the calculation penalty squarely on the beneficiary (installer). MDD Since POSes already have ticks, why not update the rate of completion for jobs installed in the POS every tick (in addition to when the job was installed)? It'd be impossible to exploit with modules on the same POS, then, and still rediculous to try to exploit across all POSes (who's going to online then offline several modules every hour?). |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:15:00 -
[56] - Quote
Plug in Baby wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote: What if you live in catch, Tenerfis, stain??
Not everyone lives in deklein or Branch
That isn't really my point, I'm not on some anti-null mission here, I am just stating the facts. There are plenty of safe regions with no slot limits and enough pilots to produce caps at a reduced cost to drive the prices. Currently that reduced cost will be greater than the profit margin on the product. If you accept those two as fact, even with slightly increased in jump cost it really is the obvious conclusion. I'm not say all of null are going to benefit, I'm not saying all of null is some perfectly safe heaven.
Here is the question...
Do you balance risk/reward against Deklein or Catch? 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 :)
|
Oxide Ammar
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:19:00 -
[57] - Quote
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 ? |
Plug in Baby
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:21:00 -
[58] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote: Here is the question...
Do you balance risk/reward against Deklein or Catch?
I'm sorry what are you suggesting? You think that Deklein and Catch should have a bonus over other null regions because they have more risk? I honestly don't understand what you are getting at
Deklein and Catch can still compete with other regions unlike low as they still have the potential to make a profit. This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main. |
Valterra Craven
219
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:21:00 -
[59] - Quote
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? |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:23:00 -
[60] - Quote
Two things:
1. Hate to be a pita, but can we get a solid statement whether these (or slight tweaks to the numbers here) are the only changes coming on June 3? There's only a month left and some of us need to plan for the transition including POS setup, how many AMLs/MLs we'll need, etc..
2. I just want to reiterate that the lack of slots completely obliterates the function of MLs and AMLs as we know them today. Shaving a little bit of time off of them doesn't change that. That said, people will still use them for convenience or on the off chance the time savings facilitate a particular workflow (especially where people want to do long jobs and are okay risking the BPO). This leads to the problem of the useless AML. There are very few situations where the slight extra copy time will justify sinking money in an AML rather than an ML. Make the AML truly advanced by giving it ME and taking away invention from MLs. |
|
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:23:00 -
[61] - Quote
Plug in Baby wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote: Here is the question...
Do you balance risk/reward against Deklein or Catch?
I'm sorry what are you suggesting? You think that Deklein and Catch should have a bonus over other null regions because they have more risk? I honestly don't understand what you are getting at Deklein and Catch can still compete with other regions unlike low as they still have the potential to make a profit.
No, I suggested there is risk in null
Someone replied blue donut
I was re iterating, not EVERYONE lives in a blue donut
So, do you balance risk/reward against the blue donut or the areas of conflict?
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 :)
|
Oxide Ammar
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:32:00 -
[62] - Quote
....Also can you please introduce way to rent assembly lines to public ? let Corps can compete for their rental fees like POCOs |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:36:00 -
[63] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:....Also can you please introduce way to rent assembly lines to public ? let Corps compete for their rental fees like POCOs
they mentioned the fact that alliance used to be able to do ME/PE jobs within alliance and that is no longer possible due to not being able to put on jobs from station. now that all jobs have to originate from a POS and only corp members have access to pos arrays, it will be absolutely impossible to rent out slots in a pos 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 :)
|
Plug in Baby
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:39:00 -
[64] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
So, do you balance risk/reward against the blue donut or the areas of conflict?
I don't understand, there is no 'balance' here it is very simple. You either can build capitals in low or you can't (unless you want to make a loss). My argument is that the difference in cost to produce should be small enough that they can be built in low, which is what was mentioned at the fanfest panel but is not shown in this thread.
Not really sure where there idea of balance has come in or why you are pointing out that some regions are riskier because it is unrelated to my point.
I think you think this is like mining, like null should make 50m/hr vs 20m/hr in low or something to balance risk. That is not the case, it is you can build with profit or you can build with loss, simple. This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main. |
Sylvanium Orlenard
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
49
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:39:00 -
[65] - Quote
Copying this here from an other thread (original post)
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.
Suggestion.
Give Labs and Assembly arrays inherent workers. Example : Equipment Assembly Array have 6 Inherent workers. The first 6 jobs (one worker per job) running at the same time will use the basic price and any extra jobs (past number 6) that is running concurrently will use the standard price scalling mechanic as it would apply for any job in the system.
This would effectively give POS owners a price advantage, so maybe the calculation would have to be a discount for the first 6 jobs and then full price. This would effectively give a reason to have more then one module of one type attached to a POS but also keep the unlimited jobs per module option. Having more modules then becomes a ISK vs RISK calculation (should I have more defences online or should I have more assembly arrays online)
I used 6 for the Equip Assembly array because this is the current number of slots this modules gives. Please feel free to change that number to whatever you feel is more appropriate.
If you have an easy, non server intensive way to calculate how many concurrent jobs are running in a single array then this should be somewhat easy to implement. If you don't then this point is moot and forget this suggestion. |
Kai Hamabu
Schizophrenics
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:39:00 -
[66] - 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?
>Yes, this is a good idea. But i think Hyasyoda mobile labs needs a big buff (For the Caldari Epic)
Hyasyoda 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: 0.6 (was 0.65). Time multiplier for invention: 0.5 (was 0.5)
So we need only this Lab for a POS, but it will be expensive.
|
Oxide Ammar
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 16:40:00 -
[67] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:....Also can you please introduce way to rent assembly lines to public ? let Corps compete for their rental fees like POCOs they mentioned the fact that alliance used to be able to do ME/PE jobs within alliance and that is no longer possible due to not being able to put on jobs from station. now that all jobs have to originate from a POS and only corp members have access to pos arrays, it will be absolutely impossible to rent out slots in a pos
May be they should introduce an array/hangar that can be anchored outside POS shield that you dump your mat and BPC at it and queue the job and let the POS owner handle the rest...mmm like Mail box XD |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
263
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 17:05:00 -
[68] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....
MODULAR STARBASES!!
There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases.
245 pages of ideas, discussions and requests from those of us who are merely "a small portion of the community" (CCP's description of us, not our own description)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194625
for more than a year now, and there are threads before that as well we have requested, begged, pleaded, presented, outlined, and whined about POS's and this summer, well, you know...
o/ Celly Smunt
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |
Tetania
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 17:13:00 -
[69] - Quote
Stop derailing focused threads with "Fix POS" whines.
They know POS are an issue, they are also non trivial to fix and you can't just remove them until they are fixed because so much depends on them. |
Danny Centauri
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
85
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 17:17:00 -
[70] - Quote
First off would just like to say the thought of an industry release was enough to bring me back to game, but still think thereGÇÖs quite a bit of work to do to make it as popular as Apocrypha.
Couple of things that for me personally need addressing:
1) Mobile labs and advanced mobile labs need renaming or changing to actually reflect their names - so one named for TE and one for ME research or actually give both all of the research options. ThereGÇÖs no reason for both to not have all 4 types of research now slots are removed so rebalance them to offer 2 tiers of bonus would be a wise move to make it more accessible and understandable.
2) The storage space sucks GÇô there is no reason not to vastly increase the storage space 10 fold on all arrays, it simply allows players to put more at risk whilst making installing jobs easier. Previously to install 100 component jobs I had to move a bunch of T2 materials between 10 arrays, the most annoying part being not all of the materials fit in a single array so it wasnGÇÖt a simple case of moving things between arrays. This is a needlessly annoying task, that also makes group industry more frustrating too logging on an off between alts to move materials between arrays and to install jobs is just pointless gameplay.
Also just a quick additional thing is like many others I really think some bonus needs to be in place for multiple arrays. IGÇÖve also done highsec POS bashing for profit and we used to choose our targets based on the number of arrays and their sale value. So either there needs to be an incentive to keep more expensive stuff in space or loot needs to drop from industry jobs in progress when a array is destroyed. The risk and reward balance only works if there is a driver for people to shoot highsec POSGÇÖs.
EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players. |
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
619
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 17:21:00 -
[71] - Quote
In related matters...
What happened to the rebalance of starbase weapons mentioned last year?
This is a similarly low impact project to tweak weapon stats that have remained the same for almost a decade, since Dreads had less hitpoints than a typical battleship or T3 cruiser does these days. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 17:27:00 -
[72] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:In related matters...
What happened to the rebalance of starbase weapons mentioned last year?
This is a similarly low impact project to tweak weapon stats that have remained the same for almost a decade, since Dreads had less hitpoints than a typical battleship or T3 cruiser does these days.
Fozzie acknowledged on the stream the bad bad bad place missiles are in, combines with POS defense overall 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 :)
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3560
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 17:43:00 -
[73] - Quote
I like to consider myself as "The POS Guy", as I've posted numerous times on the topic.
I really don't have a problem with any of the proposed changes, so far.
Good points, that make be very happy:
* Advanced Ship Assembly Arrays will be useful.
This has long been a personal crusade of mine: [Proposal] Make Advanced Ship manufacturing arrays useful, July 5th, 2010 And it even got CSM attention: Make Advanced Ship Assembly Arrays useful (CSM), Submission date: Sep 11, 2010
* Ammunition Assembly Array, and other arrays, getting more storage.
This is HUGE, and I'm not talking about volume. I mean finally there is a chance for 30-day ammunition build jobs (I'll have to do some math to verify), and building lots of bombs; previously one had to use a station to build any large quantity of bombs.
Personally, I of course would like to see them all with larger storage, especially Component Assembly Array, but something is better than nothing. |
Nex Killer
Perkone Caldari State
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 17:47:00 -
[74] - Quote
Any news on making the Starbase Defense Management skill only needing anchoring 4 and not 5? Like that one guy said at fanfest. |
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 18:25:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium,
I know sweeping changes for pos structures probably won't make this patch, but a slight tweak to the Refining arrays grid usage would be nice, 750k is a pile of grid... just means I have to offline piles of stuff everytime i want to refine mins. It's not a big deal, just adds a lot of time onlining those same mods over and over again, and it is rather pointless, everyone is gonna keep their refine arrays offline anyway.
Regards |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 18:35:00 -
[76] - Quote
Angelina Duvolle wrote:CCP Ytterbium,
I know sweeping changes for pos structures probably won't make this patch, but a slight tweak to the Refining arrays grid usage would be nice, 750k is a pile of grid... just means I have to offline piles of stuff everytime i want to refine mins. It's not a big deal, just adds a lot of time onlining those same mods over and over again, and it is rather pointless, everyone is gonna keep their refine arrays offline anyway.
Regards
What size tower are you using?
Have you accounted for the fact you will only need 1 of each assy array and one adv lab and one hyasoda etc, now that there are no more slots?
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 :)
|
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 19:05:00 -
[77] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote: What size tower are you using?
Have you accounted for the fact you will only need 1 of each assy array and one adv lab and one hyasoda etc, now that there are no more slots?
Yup, but even then, 750,000 grid is still a lot if you want to maximize your limited defensive capabilities. Yeah I can offline 10 guns, then spend 20min re-onlining them all. Seems kinda a waste of time.
Really, an argument could be made that basic service types of modules should need minimal grid/cpu usage. (refining, corp hangars, ship maint etc)
It's not like pos defenses are going to become to overpowering given the state they are in now..... |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 19:12:00 -
[78] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:
Edit: Also, 2% barely justifies the 600m isk/month cost a worthwhile POS takes to run IMO. Especially with infinite slots available in stations which are risk-free.
Because being able to produce things faster has no outcome on how much isk per month you can make... Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 19:14:00 -
[79] - Quote
Will we be able to place BPOs into the personal hangar arrays (Therefore still be at risk), and still conduct research and manufacturing on them? Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 19:42:00 -
[80] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:Will we be able to place BPOs into the personal hangar arrays (Therefore still be at risk), and still conduct research and manufacturing on them? NO, they MUST be in the physical item doing the production, research, invention etc 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 :)
|
|
Oxide Ammar
113
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 19:46:00 -
[81] - Quote
scratch that. |
Echo Mande
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 19:54:00 -
[82] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Can you introduce an array that can be used to build frieghters from it in hi sec , since you are introducing 2% ME reduction to build in assembly arrays, or this is too much to ask ? I can't really decide if this isn't a troll or not but . . . What you're asking for is a Large Ship Assembly Array, which already exists. |
Oxide Ammar
113
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 19:56:00 -
[83] - Quote
Echo Mande wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:Can you introduce an array that can be used to build frieghters from it in hi sec , since you are introducing 2% ME reduction to build in assembly arrays, or this is too much to ask ? I can't really decide if this isn't a troll or not but . . . What you're asking for is a Large Ship Assembly Array, which already exists. lol yea I just figured this out when I was checking https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Large_Ship_Assembly_Array I thought that array was only about BS |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 20:35:00 -
[84] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Echo Mande wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:Can you introduce an array that can be used to build frieghters from it in hi sec , since you are introducing 2% ME reduction to build in assembly arrays, or this is too much to ask ? I can't really decide if this isn't a troll or not but . . . What you're asking for is a Large Ship Assembly Array, which already exists. lol yea I just figured this out when I was checking https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Large_Ship_Assembly_ArrayI thought that array was only about BS
Freighter and JF are weird ducks, Orca even weirder (Is that a word?)
Freighter sna JF both are Capital class vessels (They can be doomsdayed, they use capital components to build) I would assume they use Capital class rigs, but do NOT require capital ships skill to pilot
Orca uses capital components to build, but is NOT a capital class vessel and can not be doomsdayed and it does not require Capital ships skill to pilot.
In all 3 of these cases, they can be built in a Large ship assembly array, as well as a capital ship assembly array (Old XL Ship Assembly Array) which is an old hack from when the introduced rorquals and made the rule about no more caps in high sec (Minus some grandfathered under special rules) 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 :)
|
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 21:08:00 -
[85] - Quote
Lemmih AI wrote: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.
100% this! |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
371
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 21:28:00 -
[86] - Quote
An actually thread about POS improvements?! Is end of Time near!? Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup |
Nalha Saldana
DEAD JESTERS The Harlequin's
800
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 21:31:00 -
[87] - Quote
Can we get a confirmation on what ME multiplier the Rapid Equipment Assembly Array will have, please? |
Winthorp
Rolled Out
1613
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 21:37:00 -
[88] - Quote
All these changes and you still can't make personal SMA's? (Insert witty signature here) |
Arronicus
Ravens' Nest Outlaw Horizon.
945
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 22:32:00 -
[89] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....
The one most universally desired and requested feature for starbases has been a revamp of roles. |
Arronicus
Ravens' Nest Outlaw Horizon.
945
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 23:12:00 -
[90] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:If you want people to make use of the advanced manufacturing arrays you need to give them more than one slot. They need the equivalent of their normal variants.
You don't build T2 ships one at a time, you build them by the dozen or more. Installing 20+ simultainious ship-building jobs is not a rare occurrence.
Edit: Also, 2% barely justifies the 600m isk/month cost a worthwhile POS takes to run IMO. Especially with infinite slots available in stations which are risk-free. There are no slots any more. Right now, you can install as many jobs into one of these as you want to.
Not only that, but you can do it from a small, for 150m/ month heh. |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
966
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 23:36:00 -
[91] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3. I don't think this is sufficient. Is there any particular issue you are trying to avoid by keeping the storage on these arrays small? Wouldn't it be better just to make them big enough so that they aren't a massive pain to use? ME0 Erebus with crappy component BP is right under 55,000,000m3. I suggest we start there !!
Why not a whole titan, since all the components can be worked in in a single arrat at a small tower, simultaneously, with no cost penalty....
I find it hard to beleive that CCP thought this through, AT ALL! This can NOT be intended. |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
966
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 23:47:00 -
[92] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:An actually thread about POS improvements?! Is end of Time near!?
With unlimited slots in high stations for .7% higher cost, on average, they have removed the reason to have a high sec POS. This is an absolute fail attempt to give a POS some value.
The June changes, as announced, are AFU on so many levels.
It is going to take sooooo much longer to get a sub-1% waste BPO post update than the planned change at update, that it is likely to cause the same kind of hate amoung new players that is seen from T2 BPOs.
The unlimited slots at a single POS assembly array is game breaking.
The unlimited slots in station kills the reason to have a POS, and these changes do nothing to bring that back. 100 million for a small POS. 2% lower material cost? You have to turn 5 billion a month for the 2% savings to cover the cost of fuel, FOR A SMALL.... and then there is the risk and hassle of having the POS that means you have to turn more than that.
Seriously, they need to take a break, ask for an extra month, and do it right. This is not close to "right". |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3171
|
Posted - 2014.05.05 23:55:00 -
[93] - Quote
Well, NPC stations do have a 10% tax that POS don't. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 00:06:00 -
[94] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Uncle Shrimpa wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3. I don't think this is sufficient. Is there any particular issue you are trying to avoid by keeping the storage on these arrays small? Wouldn't it be better just to make them big enough so that they aren't a massive pain to use? ME0 Erebus with crappy component BP is right under 55,000,000m3. I suggest we start there !! Why not a whole titan, since all the components can be worked in in a single arrat at a small tower, simultaneously, with no cost penalty.... I find it hard to beleive that CCP thought this through, AT ALL! This can NOT be intended.
All, EXCEPT the CSAA, that takes a medium as it takes 2000cpu, plus you have to have the CAA and CSAA online at the same time to drag the components 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 :)
|
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 00:12:00 -
[95] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:An actually thread about POS improvements?! Is end of Time near!? With unlimited slots in high stations for .7% higher cost, on average, they have removed the reason to have a high sec POS. This is an absolute fail attempt to give a POS some value. The June changes, as announced, are AFU on so many levels. It is going to take sooooo much longer to get a sub-1% waste BPO post update than the planned change at update, that it is likely to cause the same kind of hate amoung new players that is seen from T2 BPOs. The unlimited slots at a single POS assembly array is game breaking. The unlimited slots in station kills the reason to have a POS, and these changes do nothing to bring that back. 100 million for a small POS. 2% lower material cost? You have to turn 5 billion a month for the 2% savings to cover the cost of fuel, FOR A SMALL.... and then there is the risk and hassle of having the POS that means you have to turn more than that. Seriously, they need to take a break, ask for an extra month, and do it right. This is not close to "right".
Not exactly. Savings on manufacturing and the better ISK/hr on manufacturing jobs makes that the key reason for a highsec POS. If you're not ready to throw up a small tower with a single array of each kind you need, you're probably going to be leaving money on the table.
That said, unlimited slots is fundamentally against how these arrays work right now. But the answer--I've come to accept--is not to introduce slots through a backdoor like costs for too many jobs at one array. That would just nuke much of the remaining hope for the highsec POS.
Let's face it. The prevalence of highsec POSs today stems almost completely from the lack of copy and ME slots at stations. Take that away, and people have to do the hard work of justifying the time savings on assembly arrays, then maybe keeping the AML/ML for convenience.
CCP may not have thought these consequences through. But the truth is that it's here. |
Jacabon Mere
Capital Storm. Black Flag Society
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 00:12:00 -
[96] - Quote
Angelina Duvolle wrote:CCP Ytterbium,
I know sweeping changes for pos structures probably won't make this patch, but a slight tweak to the Refining arrays grid usage would be nice, 750k is a pile of grid... just means I have to offline piles of stuff everytime i want to refine mins. It's not a big deal, just adds a lot of time onlining those same mods over and over again, and it is rather pointless, everyone is gonna keep their refine arrays offline anyway.
Regards
Read the reprocessing dev blog. Refining arrays will use 100k or 200k PG depending on type. Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Lowsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
839
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 01:05:00 -
[97] - Quote
When you say 2% bonus is that a 2% reduction in materials out right so 100=98 Or Is that a +2% new me bonus? Or is it equal now?
Lephia DeGrande wrote:An actually thread about POS improvements?! Is end of Time near!? The little brother takes the last sorrowful step home He is not wanted
The entities of nothing shall consume the light |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
129
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 02:41:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3.
1.5m m3 is just too small to be of much use when building Capital components. There would still be a whole lot of micromanagement of minerals between arrays just to set jobs that last 1 week. 10,000,000 m3 would be my minimum size I would like to see.
|
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 03:06:00 -
[99] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:When you say 2% bonus is that a 2% reduction in materials out right so 100=98 Or Is that a +2% new me bonus? Or is it equal now?
Those should be the same thing now. |
Dodo Jumper
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 05:43:00 -
[100] - Quote
Will ship assemble arrays pick up the 2% material bonus? |
|
Dei
Khanid Brotherhood
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 06:49:00 -
[101] - Quote
Has anyone thought about how they're going to transfer their stuff between arrays? I don't really want to be going to the POS all the time to move a newly copied set of BPCs to their relevant manufacturing arrays all the time. Previously it didn't matter where the BPOs/BPCs were but now they have to be with the slot location, so I can see this being a big ballache if there's no way to remotely transfer stuff between arrays at the starbase. |
Celia Therone
University of Caille Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 07:48:00 -
[102] - Quote
Are the power grid/cpu requirements for POS modules going to change now that they have infinite slots? |
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 07:50:00 -
[103] - Quote
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. |
Sigras
Conglomo
750
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 08:02:00 -
[104] - 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)? |
zahter
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 08:11:00 -
[105] - Quote
I am a t2 manufacturer for few months. I have pos and recently extended my production amount and enlarged my pos facilities. I was worried after the announcement. I was very scared of extra costs, I thought having pos was a luxury.
After I read many suggestions, spending some time reading the forum threads on changes, I wanted to make my own calculation
lets say material cost of items is "a" lets say installing cost of job is "b" installing cost "b" will be a function of "a". the only difference is tax of station pos have %2 material efficiency bonus, so "b" becomes b*0.98 for pos
total cost of producing items in station =b + 1.1 x a total cost of producing the item in pos = b x 0.98 + a
"b" being a function of "a" lets assume a coefficient "c" b=a x c
station= b+1.1xbxc= b x (1+1.1 x c) pos= b x 0.98 +b x c = b x (0.98 +c)
"c" is variable depending on the system and the amount of people actually using production services in system but it is same for starbase and station.
lets give "c" a value changing from %1 to %10 of the cost (this is extreme)
the ration between station and pos costs= (1 +1.1 x c) / (0.98 + c)
The ratio difference between pos and station production is not depended on item cost of production
if c is between %1 and %10 differences are always
"c" coefficientratio station/pos 0.01 1.021212121 0.02 1.022 0.03 1.022772277 0.04 1.023529412 0.05 1.024271845 0.06 1.025 0.07 1.025714286 0.08 1.026415094 0.09 1.027102804 0.1 1.027777778
with theese rations we need to produce about 6b worth of stuff in a month to rationalize fuel costs.
6b x 0.022 = 136.6m (small caldari pos fuel cost atm)
This bonus is very small for all the work pos requires.However the speed bonus of pos is not included in these calculation. In ideal conditions a pos can produce %25 more items than a station so it will be reasonable to have one, but using a pos with full potential is full time job.
There is starbase bonus mentioned in the related devblog. We did not hear from it since. It would be a good idea to implement it with summer tweaks.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
750
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 10:00:00 -
[106] - Quote
zahter wrote:lets say material cost of items is "a" lets say installing cost of job is "b" pos have %2 material efficiency bonus, so "b" becomes b*0.98 for pos no, youre wrong POS have a 2% ME bonus so "a" becomes a*0.98 for POS
A material bonus applies to the material cost of the items ... go figure... |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1044
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 10:20:00 -
[107] - Quote
I don't understand why I would want to use a POS after these changes. And where is the lowsec bonus? Perhaps this needs to stay in the oven for just a little longer. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Sigras
Conglomo
750
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 10:26:00 -
[108] - Quote
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? |
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 10:30:00 -
[109] - 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?
Plus time bonus for assembly arrays that stays the same and no NPC tax for job installation. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 10:39:00 -
[110] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I don't understand why I would want to use a POS after these changes. And where is the lowsec bonus? Perhaps this needs to stay in the oven for just a little longer.
Higher refine rate than highsec and the ability to make capitals (Dreads and carriers) that isn't enough? 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 :)
|
|
Ian Stanley
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 10:43:00 -
[111] - 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.
i also for one wants a stronger bonus as right now there is no reason to choose the adv mobile lab over mobile lab! |
Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid
84
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:08:00 -
[112] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote: Also, 2% barely justifies the 600m isk/month cost a worthwhile POS takes to run IMO. Especially with infinite slots available in stations which are risk-free.
really? that 2% for me would cover the cost of the pos on it's own and if the production tax is cheaper than building in a station where lots of people are building and the right teams can be bought in then it makes manufacturing in low sec profitable and that's with just 1 person using a tower if a whole group of people is using the tower then that 2% mineral cost stacks up to a pretty huge saving |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
839
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:23:00 -
[113] - Quote
I liked the original 5% plan better, but I would rather have the 2% than no bonus Besides 2% is a nice round consistent number |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3174
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:24:00 -
[114] - Quote
It should be noted that /right now/, there are plenty of free industrial slots out there.
And yet, you have people who manufacture out of POS, with no material bonus.
What you were getting: Improved output (around 33% more modules) Available slots. (Relatively minor, unless you decided to go to a slammed system, or a system with no station services)
What you will be getting: Reduced build cost (no NPC tax. Possibly some mechanic for having more than one array/lab). Reduced build cost (base out of a low moon, no station service system, and you'll have very low costs due to the low percentage) Reduced Material cost. (2%. Not significant for some things, due to how the numbers work. for T2, this will be likely minimal on most modules. You can't treat it as a flat modifier. More significant on Expensive T1 things (high mineral counts = bigger effect) Reduced build time.
I still want to see what the layout is of build hours, but I don't think we'll get that before release (Greyscale and I disagreed on the utility, at the industry round table. I can see his point (Everything will change, as people who don't pay attention in advance cotton on), but I don't agree with it.) Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3421
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:31:00 -
[115] - 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 -
[116] - 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 -
[117] - 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 -
[118] - 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 -
[119] - 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. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3174
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 11:45:00 -
[120] - 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?
Just want to say, I quite like this idea. Provides a better differentiation between the lab types. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
|
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.
|
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
966
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 15:00:00 -
[151] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote: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
Invented BPC will have a ME of -40. |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1890
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 15:05:00 -
[152] - Quote
@Oxide Ammar
Already done that! 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! |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
839
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 15:13:00 -
[153] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:NEONOVUS wrote: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 Invented BPC will have a ME of -40. Im unsure if I should start screaming or smiling with **** |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
966
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 15:18:00 -
[154] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:NEONOVUS wrote: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 Invented BPC will have a ME of -40. Im unsure if I should start screaming or smiling with ****
Technically, it isn't "ME -40" since the term ME will be going away. It will be a 40% increase in material needs, as opposed to the 10% reduction that will be possible from researching an original.
So, the 2% gain from POS or 5% gain from fully upgraded outpost are a change to 38% and 35% increase.
As opposed to a BPO which will be able to get 2% and 5% below what had previously been considered ideal. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
839
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 16:06:00 -
[155] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:NEONOVUS wrote: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 Invented BPC will have a ME of -40. Im unsure if I should start screaming or smiling with **** Technically, it isn't "ME -40" since the term ME will be going away. It will be a 40% increase in material needs, as opposed to the 10% reduction that will be possible from researching an original. So, the 2% gain from POS or 5% gain from fully upgraded outpost are a change to 38% and 35% increase. As opposed to a BPO which will be able to get 2% and 5% below what had previously been considered ideal. The bigger question is that since the current extras are being folded in, do they stay at their current level and get better or are they currently at ME 0 (im going to call it this for simplicity) and thus going to increase by 40% then reduce by 2% and then 25% for the skill |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1454
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 16:13:00 -
[156] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:NEONOVUS wrote: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 Invented BPC will have a ME of -40. Im unsure if I should start screaming or smiling with **** Technically, it isn't "ME -40" since the term ME will be going away. It will be a 40% increase in material needs, as opposed to the 10% reduction that will be possible from researching an original. So, the 2% gain from POS or 5% gain from fully upgraded outpost are a change to 38% and 35% increase. As opposed to a BPO which will be able to get 2% and 5% below what had previously been considered ideal. The bigger question is that since the current extras are being folded in, do they stay at their current level and get better or are they currently at ME 0 (im going to call it this for simplicity) and thus going to increase by 40% then reduce by 2% and then 25% for the skill
i dnt think any T2 BPC's will get worse, or at least that was a the impression i got, and the skill for 25% ME will be incorporated into all BP's as their base materials. The skill itself will be changed to do something else iirc. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
966
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 16:20:00 -
[157] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:NEONOVUS wrote: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 Invented BPC will have a ME of -40. Im unsure if I should start screaming or smiling with **** Technically, it isn't "ME -40" since the term ME will be going away. It will be a 40% increase in material needs, as opposed to the 10% reduction that will be possible from researching an original. So, the 2% gain from POS or 5% gain from fully upgraded outpost are a change to 38% and 35% increase. As opposed to a BPO which will be able to get 2% and 5% below what had previously been considered ideal. The bigger question is that since the current extras are being folded in, do they stay at their current level and get better or are they currently at ME 0 (im going to call it this for simplicity) and thus going to increase by 40% then reduce by 2% and then 25% for the skill
Stay as they are so as to not effect BPO, but then get increased 40% from invention.
One way or the other, they used to be the same for BPO and invented BPC, but will now be 40% higher for invented.
|
Marsan
220
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 16:30:00 -
[158] - Quote
Honestly I don't see how these changes make me want to use a POS to research or copy a BPO. On one hand I have a station which I just haul the BPOs to and click a few times to research in total safety. On the other hand I have the POS which I have to:
- Buy a POS - Buy labs - Buy defences - Find an unused moon - Create an alt corp (because Lords know I won't risk a corp with anyone but me) - Haul my POS, and modules there - Setup POS - Setup defenses - Setup labs - Do my carpel tunnel exercises - Start BPO research - Login daily to insure I haven't been war deced
Sure it in theory costs less isk and takes less in game time, but personally I work for a living, have a spouse, hobbies, and the rest. I care less about in game time or isk than fun, and my time. Given the above effort I'd much take the isk hit, and in game time hit. Also I'd argue that the time and effort to research in a POS would give better returns invested market trading, running FW sites or heck even running a l4 missions. That doesn't even factor in the risk of losing the BPO. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 16:41:00 -
[159] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
Right direction, but missed the mark by quite a portion... Honestly those moderate increments are next to worthless in regard to unlimited slots. I propose multiplying your numbers by 8 to 10 and fitting requirements for the smaller modules (eq/comp/drone/small_ship arrays) by 3 to 5, and for larger ones by 2. Remember, those modules will now have to substitute for a former farm of arrays each (and no, anchoring half a dozen of those just to get more space and having to deal with moving mats all the time is NOT an option).
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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).
Imho the Hya lab needs way more buff. This is a rare lab with very limited supply and the multiplier difference to the regular lab of a mere 0.05 is a real joke ^^ Make it (AT LEAST) 0.5 or 0.55, the bonus should really reflect the uniqueness of this lab. Besides, seems you forgot the bonus to invention on this one. The Hya lab is the lab with the largest invention slot pool as of now. This should be considered when balancing it for summer. Therefore add a nice bonus to invention time. This can even range down to 0.35 to better reflect the currently 3 times larger slot pool for invention compared to the advanced lab.
|
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
181
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 16:48:00 -
[160] - Quote
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. |
|
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 17:10:00 -
[161] - Quote
Marsan wrote:PS- Also it's a horrible idea to have a structure solely for researching BPOs. Anchoring a Research Lab is basically saying I have a BPO in the POS please siege me.
This. Make MLs do something like ME/copy and AMLs something like PE/invent or MLs are going to collapse.
Hyasyodas are also kinda bad on this system. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3424
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 17:19:00 -
[162] - 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. |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
966
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 17:28:00 -
[163] - Quote
Marsan wrote:Honestly I don't see how these changes make me want to use a POS to research or copy a BPO. On one hand I have a station which I just haul the BPOs to and click a few times to research in total safety. On the other hand I have the POS which I have to:
- Buy a POS - Buy labs - Buy defences - Find an unused moon - Create an alt corp (because Lords know I won't risk a corp with anyone but me) - Haul my POS, and modules there - Setup POS - Setup defenses - Setup labs - Do my carpel tunnel exercises - Start BPO research - Login daily to insure I haven't been war deced
Sure it in theory costs less isk and takes less in game time, but personally I work for a living, have a spouse, hobbies, and the rest. I care less about in game time or isk than fun, and my time. Given the above effort I'd much take the isk hit, and in game time hit. Also I'd argue that the time and effort to setup and maintain a research POS would give better returns invested market trading, running FW sites or heck even running a l4 missions. That doesn't even factor in the risk of losing the BPO.
PS- Also it's a horrible idea to have a structure solely for researching BPOs. Anchoring a Research Lab is basically saying I have a BPO in the POS please siege me.
PPS- Sure You might argue that I'd don't need to setup my own corp and POS, but then you've really dealt with security in a POS.
Except that when you figure in fuel, NO WAY does it cost less.
Let's say the cost in station is 7% of 2% of what is produced and we're researching a BPO that produces a capital that is worth 1 billion ISK. 1B *.07*.02= 1.4 million. I'd have to run 75 such jobs per month to pay for the 100 million iSK a month fuel cost of a SMALL POS, and 4 times that many to justify a large POS.
If we're researching battleship BPOs, which produce something worth 100 million, * 7% * 2% = 140K, or 750 such jobs to pay for the fuel of a small POS. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
839
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 17:46:00 -
[164] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. Consistency!! Argh my liver! |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
182
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 17:47:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Oh my god, CCP actually took one of my ideas and directly quoted me. |
Uncle Shrimpa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
24
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 17:48:00 -
[166] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Marsan wrote:Honestly I don't see how these changes make me want to use a POS to research or copy a BPO. On one hand I have a station which I just haul the BPOs to and click a few times to research in total safety. On the other hand I have the POS which I have to:
- Buy a POS - Buy labs - Buy defences - Find an unused moon - Create an alt corp (because Lords know I won't risk a corp with anyone but me) - Haul my POS, and modules there - Setup POS - Setup defenses - Setup labs - Do my carpel tunnel exercises - Start BPO research - Login daily to insure I haven't been war deced
Sure it in theory costs less isk and takes less in game time, but personally I work for a living, have a spouse, hobbies, and the rest. I care less about in game time or isk than fun, and my time. Given the above effort I'd much take the isk hit, and in game time hit. Also I'd argue that the time and effort to setup and maintain a research POS would give better returns invested market trading, running FW sites or heck even running a l4 missions. That doesn't even factor in the risk of losing the BPO.
PS- Also it's a horrible idea to have a structure solely for researching BPOs. Anchoring a Research Lab is basically saying I have a BPO in the POS please siege me.
PPS- Sure You might argue that I'd don't need to setup my own corp and POS, but then you've really dealt with security in a POS. Except that when you figure in fuel, NO WAY does it cost less. Let's say the cost in station is 7% of 2% of what is produced and we're researching a BPO that produces a capital that is worth 1 billion ISK. 1B *.07*.02= 1.4 million. I'd have to run 75 such jobs per month to pay for the 100 million iSK a month fuel cost of a SMALL POS, and 4 times that many to justify a large POS. If we're researching battleship BPOs, which produce something worth 100 million, * 7% * 2% = 140K, or 750 such jobs to pay for the fuel of a small POS.
I used to run a large pos with 2 XL ship assy arrays, I ran 6 lines and carriers/dreads pooped out roughly every 9 days. That is 18 a month. In station, they pay extra build costs and can only do approx 15 a month. With the 2% bonus on components and 2% on the carrier BPO, plus the fact minerals need to be refined at a pos or you lose 4 more percent. Personally a POS is and always will be a winning solution to industry
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 :)
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
966
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 18:05:00 -
[167] - Quote
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:Marsan wrote:Honestly I don't see how these changes make me want to use a POS to research or copy a BPO. On one hand I have a station which I just haul the BPOs to and click a few times to research in total safety. On the other hand I have the POS which I have to:
- Buy a POS - Buy labs - Buy defences - Find an unused moon - Create an alt corp (because Lords know I won't risk a corp with anyone but me) - Haul my POS, and modules there - Setup POS - Setup defenses - Setup labs - Do my carpel tunnel exercises - Start BPO research - Login daily to insure I haven't been war deced
Sure it in theory costs less isk and takes less in game time, but personally I work for a living, have a spouse, hobbies, and the rest. I care less about in game time or isk than fun, and my time. Given the above effort I'd much take the isk hit, and in game time hit. Also I'd argue that the time and effort to setup and maintain a research POS would give better returns invested market trading, running FW sites or heck even running a l4 missions. That doesn't even factor in the risk of losing the BPO.
PS- Also it's a horrible idea to have a structure solely for researching BPOs. Anchoring a Research Lab is basically saying I have a BPO in the POS please siege me.
PPS- Sure You might argue that I'd don't need to setup my own corp and POS, but then you've really dealt with security in a POS. Except that when you figure in fuel, NO WAY does it cost less. Let's say the cost in station is 7% of 2% of what is produced and we're researching a BPO that produces a capital that is worth 1 billion ISK. 1B *.07*.02= 1.4 million. I'd have to run 75 such jobs per month to pay for the 100 million iSK a month fuel cost of a SMALL POS, and 4 times that many to justify a large POS. If we're researching battleship BPOs, which produce something worth 100 million, * 7% * 2% = 140K, or 750 such jobs to pay for the fuel of a small POS. I used to run a large pos with 2 XL ship assy arrays, I ran 6 lines and carriers/dreads pooped out roughly every 9 days. That is 18 a month. In station, they pay extra build costs and can only do approx 15 a month. With the 2% bonus on components and 2% on the carrier BPO, plus the fact minerals need to be refined at a pos or you lose 4 more percent. Personally a POS is and always will be a winning solution to industry
Read the post I was responding to... specifically this: "Honestly I don't see how these changes make me want to use a POS to research or copy a BPO."
And, I don't think anyone is saying there won't be any low or null POSes. They are very useful for a safe spot, for moon mining, etc. We're more concerned with the future of high sec POSes.
You can get the 4% refine by setting the POS up for a couple hours, they putting it back away.
But, let's focus on your scenario. Let's assume 10% profit on 1 billion ISK = 100 million profit per at a station. x 15 = 1.5B total profit.
And let's say the POS gets 2% less cost (2% of 900 million input = 18 million. So: 118 million x 18 = 2.124. Now, subtract from that the 400 million ISK to run the POS. = 1.724.
200 million extra profit, but you have everything at risk, unless you are the alliance that has the most titans, so think you can protect your POS from any attack.
AND... what if you has am alt that can kick off some of the jobs? Remember, slots are no longer a limiting factor. The "alt solution" to compensate for longer run time takes away the 15 vs. 18 that is the bulk of your argument.
100 million profit in station vs. 118 million profit at POS means you need to do 23 a month to pay for the fuel, and we're not even factoring in the risk of being at the POS.
|
Danny Centauri
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
86
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 18:11:00 -
[168] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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. Right direction, but missed the mark by quite a portion... Honestly those moderate increments are next to worthless in regard to unlimited slots. I propose multiplying your numbers by 8 to 10 and fitting requirements for the smaller modules (eq/comp/drone/small_ship arrays) by 3 to 5, and for larger ones by 2. Remember, those modules will now have to substitute for a former farm of arrays each (and no, anchoring half a dozen of those just to get more space and having to deal with moving mats all the time is NOT an option). CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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).
Imho the Hya lab needs way more buff. This is a rare lab with very limited supply and the multiplier difference to the regular lab of a mere 0.05 is a real joke ^^ Make it (AT LEAST) 0.5 or 0.55, the bonus should really reflect the uniqueness of this lab. Besides, seems you forgot the bonus to invention on this one. The Hya lab is the lab with the largest invention slot pool as of now. This should be considered when balancing it for summer. Therefore add a nice bonus to invention time. This can even range down to 0.35 to better reflect the currently 3 times larger slot pool for invention compared to the advanced lab.
Agree on the storage volumes, as discussed in my previous post but disagree on the Hyasoda labs. Now that you only need one lab we can expect to see a lot more of them flood back to market as people with 5+ of them sell them, as you no longer need more than one they won't be rare.
Also the 5% bonus seems quite fair, as its actually a 16% improvement over the standard labs, 30% time reduction vs 35%. Got to double check my profit numbers including POS fuel costs etc I believe its actually a 7.7% profit improvement for a copy POS using Hyasoda labs. EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players. |
Danny Centauri
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
86
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 18:40:00 -
[169] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:AND... what if you has am alt that can kick off some of the jobs? Remember, slots are no longer a limiting factor. The "alt solution" to compensate for longer run time takes away the 15 vs. 18 that is the bulk of your argument.
100 million profit in station vs. 118 million profit at POS means you need to do 23 a month to pay for the fuel, and we're not even factoring in the risk of being at the POS.
Your math is actually off quite a bit, no matter what you're building you have a 25% time reduction, meaning you can do more each month.
100mil in station in 1 day 118mil profit in POS in 0.75 days = 157mil profit in 1 day
So real increases in profit are in the region of 50%, trust me theres more than enough incentive to build in a POS. Lets take an imaginary T2 ship build example for 30 imaginary ships:
Runs per BPC = 3 Total BPCs to build from = 10 Profit per ship = 7mil (fairly average for T2 cruiser hull) Additional profit per ship in POS = 2mil 3 run BPC build time in station = 2 days 3 run BPC build time in POS = 1.5 days
Profit in Station = 210mil in 2 days Profit in POS = 270mil in 1.5 days
Profit per day station = 105mil Gross Profit per day in POS = 180mil
POS fuel 1 day, = 17.4mil NET profit in POS = 162.6mil
Increase in profit = 54.9% (57.6mil)
If you're not building in a POS after these changes you're doing it wrong. 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 18:45:00 -
[170] - Quote
Danny Centauri wrote:Also the 5% bonus seems quite fair, as its actually a 16% improvement over the standard labs, 30% time reduction vs 35%. Got to double check my profit numbers including POS fuel costs etc I believe its actually a 7.7% profit improvement for a copy POS using Hyasoda labs. Why would a copy POS have Hyasyoda labs? There will be no copy slots on it (according to the latest iteration).
MDD |
|
Danny Centauri
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
86
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 18:54:00 -
[171] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:Danny Centauri wrote:Also the 5% bonus seems quite fair, as its actually a 16% improvement over the standard labs, 30% time reduction vs 35%. Got to double check my profit numbers including POS fuel costs etc I believe its actually a 7.7% profit improvement for a copy POS using Hyasoda labs. Why would a copy POS have Hyasyoda labs? There will be no copy slots on it (according to the latest iteration). MDD
Whoops typo at least the same math applies for improvements... just edited and replaced copy for research in original post. Its an ideal bonus for capital BPO resellers if they dare leave them in space. EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 18:56:00 -
[172] - Quote
Danny Centauri wrote: Agree on the storage volumes, as discussed in my previous post but disagree on the Hyasoda labs. Now that you only need one lab we can expect to see a lot more of them flood back to market as people with 5+ of them sell them, as you no longer need more than one they won't be rare.
Also the 5% bonus seems quite fair, as its actually a 16% improvement over the standard labs, 30% time reduction vs 35%. Got to double check my profit numbers including POS fuel costs etc I believe its actually a 7.7% profit improvement for a copy POS using Hyasoda labs.
Even if people flood them back to market, there still remains a rather limited supply through the caldari epic arc. Meaning after the market stabilizes once the fire sale is done, they will still be somehow "unique" compared to the regular labs, what imho qualifies for an outright higher bonus. And maybe CCP decides for multiple modules of same type to provide some extra bonus to job costs or something like that, in which case the market won't see that many panic sells of Hya labs (maybe).
|
Danny Centauri
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
86
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 19:05:00 -
[173] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:Danny Centauri wrote: Agree on the storage volumes, as discussed in my previous post but disagree on the Hyasoda labs. Now that you only need one lab we can expect to see a lot more of them flood back to market as people with 5+ of them sell them, as you no longer need more than one they won't be rare.
Also the 5% bonus seems quite fair, as its actually a 16% improvement over the standard labs, 30% time reduction vs 35%. Got to double check my profit numbers including POS fuel costs etc I believe its actually a 7.7% profit improvement for a copy POS using Hyasoda labs.
Even if people flood them back to market, there still remains a rather limited supply through the caldari epic arc. Meaning after the market stabilizes once the fire sale is done, they will still be somehow "unique" compared to the regular labs, what imho qualifies for an outright higher bonus. And maybe CCP decides for multiple modules of same type to provide some extra bonus to job costs or something like that, in which case the market won't see that many panic sells of Hya labs (maybe).
It's an epic arc reward, meaning that it can be repeated every 3 months. Price will most definitely go down, supply won't be any more restricted than it is now but demand will be reduced. A 16% boost in stats and 7.7% in profit is a considerable improvement better than a lot of faction modules.
Highly doubt anything will change on its stats I'm glad they are as good as they are. EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
55
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 19:45:00 -
[174] - Quote
Danny Centauri wrote:Banko Mato wrote:Danny Centauri wrote: Agree on the storage volumes, as discussed in my previous post but disagree on the Hyasoda labs. Now that you only need one lab we can expect to see a lot more of them flood back to market as people with 5+ of them sell them, as you no longer need more than one they won't be rare.
Also the 5% bonus seems quite fair, as its actually a 16% improvement over the standard labs, 30% time reduction vs 35%. Got to double check my profit numbers including POS fuel costs etc I believe its actually a 7.7% profit improvement for a copy POS using Hyasoda labs.
Even if people flood them back to market, there still remains a rather limited supply through the caldari epic arc. Meaning after the market stabilizes once the fire sale is done, they will still be somehow "unique" compared to the regular labs, what imho qualifies for an outright higher bonus. And maybe CCP decides for multiple modules of same type to provide some extra bonus to job costs or something like that, in which case the market won't see that many panic sells of Hya labs (maybe). It's an epic arc reward, meaning that it can be repeated every 3 months. Price will most definitely go down, supply won't be any more restricted than it is now but demand will be reduced. A 16% boost in stats and 7.7% in profit is a considerable improvement better than a lot of faction modules. Highly doubt anything will change on its stats I'm glad they are as good as they are.
While it certainly will be the best BP-research POS mod, I feel like it's kinda underwhelming for it to be just that. What is really hard for me to figure out is how much of the current POS dynamics are an artifact of the fact that NPC-station invention slots are so incredibly limited. As a result, I'm not sure how much changing the kinds of slots on the labs is going to crash things, even beyond the limited slot removal.
My alliance, while living in NPC nullsec, had a bunch of invention POSes up because, well, we could defend them. Since I didn't do T2 stuff myself, I cheerfully mooched off their ME research slots, since everyone else was busy using only copy and invent. (Try to use someone else's copy or invent slot, though, and people would get pretty angry; heh.) With these changes, not only will the research labs be significantly less valuable, I suspect, than the design labs, but I wouldn't be able to do that, making POSes have significantly less reason to be a community resource for anyone other than a group of T2 manufacturers.
So, personally, I think it'd be cool if we divided them up as something like "Design Labs" that have ME/Invent, "Production Labs" that do PE/Copy, and then you can have the Hyasoda lab do something different, like ME/PE, possibly also with invention slots to keep it desirable for a wider audience. |
Batelle
Tymast Industries 150th
2583
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 20:13:00 -
[175] - Quote
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. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 20:39:00 -
[176] - Quote
Firstly, I like the second pass on the labs, makes much more sense.
Steve Ronuken wrote:tl;dr:
Apply a reduction to the cost of all jobs stated in an array. Apply a penalty for every job started in an array.
So you get a 0.9 multiplier on cost for running at a pos, then a 1.01*number of active jobs in that structure. (if it knows that)
Means having multiple structures has a reasonable benefit.
I prefer the "inherent workers" approach from the previous thread to this one. While the above idea is easier to implement, I'm not keen on the gradual increase, and the lack of a cap on the increase. The gradual increase means that it is unclear what capacity the starbase arrays are "supposed" to have (similar to how the endpoint for ME/TE research used to be rather unclear).
The "inherent workers" approach means you keep the full discount up to the intended capacity of the array, and pay normal public prices for all jobs above that. Yes, it means you can continue loading up the array with jobs as far above that line as you like, but if we are letting people do that in NPC facilities, preventing it in starbase facilities would be a significant disadvantage to starbases.
While the "inherent workers" approach is slightly more complex to implement, it still isn't too bad. You need 2 additional facility attributes for each array and activity type (number of worker teams and worker cost multiplier). Industry jobs gain an additional attribute, StaffSource, being the itemID of the system or the array, depending on whether it is using public or inherent workers respectively. The Teams section of the industry UI would need a slight tweak, breaking it out into two boxes - I'd call these something like "Staff" and "Specialists". "Specialists" would be either blank or a Team. "Staff" would be either System staff or Array staff. If you select the Array staff, then the server goes away and counts the number of jobs currently installed in that array where WorkerSource = ArrayItemID, if that count is less than the InherentWorkers attribute of the array, then the job is permitted to be submitted, otherwise it is denied.
This adds an element of strategic choice for the player - which jobs do they choose to run using the Array staff, and which do they pay extra for the System staff.
It also adds more flexibility to the system, as other modifiers could be attached to the Array staff - e.g. an additional ME bonus could be attached to assembly array staff, balanced by only being able to be applied to a small number of jobs at a time. You could also do things like make intensive arrays with larger bonuses, but smaller staff counts, or bulk-build arrays with larger staff counts but a smaller bonus.
Babbet Bunny wrote:Please change how the per run cost reduction works. Make it per run and not per hour of run.
This is a really good point - because the installation cost scales based on the length of the job, time bonuses introduce an indirect penalty to this element of the installation cost formula. While this is most dramatic for the starbase arrays due to their very large bonuses, it will presumably also affect the time bonuses from TE research, skills that bonus job time etc.
While you do get a throughput benefit from completing the jobs faster, I'm uncomfortable with this disadvantaging the installation cost formula, as some of these factors (TE research, skills) are ones that you cannot turn on and off, so it isn't really contributing to meaningful decision making.
Probably the easiest fix for this is to adjust the formula so that the "hours already run" term is evaluated prior to any bonuses being applied.
Oxide Ammar wrote: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 ?
From what we've seen change, and what we've been told can't be changed, I'd surmise that if there is already an array that does basically the same thing, they can create variants that use that same effect. The refining and compression arrays fundamentally do the same thing - take away X units of an item, and give back Y units of a different item. Similarly, adjusting the values of individual things (PG usage, fuel consumption per hour, ME/TE bonuses) is just adjusting a number within the existing framework, its not fundamentally changing how those numbers are then applied by the starbase code.
The things that we aren't getting are things that no existing array does, or that other aspects of the starbase code do not support. For example, being able to have the inventories of the various manufacturing arrays talk to each other (or even act as a single unified space) would be great, but the current starbase code means that the arrays do not know that they are all at the same starbase, so they don't know whether they should be able to talk to each other or not. Now, you can do some 3-D geometry to work out which control tower is closest to an array, and which other arrays are within range of that control tower, but it gets very messy and potentially very resource intensive in systems with dozens of control towers and hundreds of arrays. |
Sigras
Conglomo
751
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 20:44:00 -
[177] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Except that when you figure in fuel, NO WAY does it cost less.
Let's say the cost in station is 7% of 2% of what is produced and we're researching a BPO that produces a capital that is worth 1 billion ISK. 1B *.07*.02= 1.4 million. I'd have to run 75 such jobs per month to pay for the 100 million iSK a month fuel cost of a SMALL POS, and 4 times that many to justify a large POS.
If we're researching battleship BPOs, which produce something worth 100 million, * 7% * 2% = 140K, or 750 such jobs to pay for the fuel of a small POS. If all you're doing is researching a single BPO then maybe a POS isnt for you, but when I'm researching copying and inventing from my POS with 11 open research jobs going constantly and 11 manufacturing jobs running all the time in a single POS, ill think of you :) |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
85
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 21:54:00 -
[178] - Quote
No 'Personal Ship Maintenance Array' yet? |
Jacabon Mere
Capital Storm. Black Flag Society
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 00:08:00 -
[179] - Quote
Stop educating the idiots. You're decreasing my future profits. Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Lowsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net |
waypoint marker
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 01:35:00 -
[180] - Quote
Rabbit P wrote: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?
I also note that
all industry slots are removed, Mobile Laboratory and Advanced Mobile Laboratory are overlapping in ME research ,copying and invention you only need 1 mobile lab to do all the things Ytterbium state that "we like the individual capabilities of each" , it seem quite reasonable that one lab only can do one thing( research ME,TE / copying and invention)
can Ytterbium confirm is it right or not? |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3181
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 01:43:00 -
[181] - Quote
waypoint marker wrote: I also note that
all industry slots are removed, Mobile Laboratory and Advanced Mobile Laboratory are overlapping in ME research ,copying and invention you only need 1 mobile lab to do all the things Ytterbium state that "we like the individual capabilities of each" , it seem quite reasonable that one lab only can do one thing( research ME,TE / copying and invention)
can Ytterbium confirm is it right or not?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4557185#post4557185
Yup. They're limiting what each type can do, because they're no longer differentiated by slot counts. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Khan'nikki
Justified Chaos
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 03:49:00 -
[182] - Quote
Dear CCP Ytterbium,
Welcome to Barter Town
Can we have some form of trade take place at POS/Planets please?
In Example: (item for item) Fuel for Charters Gas for Boosters Liquids for Water
At least simple item transactions. But what about POS tower shooting and locking and stuff.. Maybe anchoring a Trade module just means you can't shoot some ppl first. Can't be that bad.
Would be a plus for people that like running planets and not gatecamps. Allows for more specialization, more reasons to go out into low, null and WH space.
So please say hello to my little friend: Master Blaster.
Thanks!
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3425
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:09:00 -
[183] - 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. |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1044
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:22:00 -
[184] - Quote
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. Alright, who are you and what have you done with OUR CCP devs!
A most extraordinary thread. Thanks :) Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Danny Centauri
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
87
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:30:00 -
[185] - Quote
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.
Currently you're on my favourite people list for this change, here have a cookie. Do you have twitter? Sure this change will get many a favourite over at #tweetfleet EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players. |
Rodent Jr
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:53:00 -
[186] - Quote
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.
Yaaay.
Can we get some goodies for those of us who already have SDM trained... such as pos guns that can kill ships? :) |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3436
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:57:00 -
[187] - Quote
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? Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:57:00 -
[188] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.
Noooooooooo, about 2 weeks ago i finally finished all my manufacturing accounts to have one POS gunner each, couldn't you have gotten that flash of genius a bit earlier?
Besides that, what are the official reactions to the array capacity and lab feedback on the last few pages?? |
Sir Werner
Evoke. Ev0ke
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:02:00 -
[189] - Quote
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. Can we get the skills point back for Anchoring 5? |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
122
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:02:00 -
[190] - 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?
I think that is more than one number. |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3436
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:10:00 -
[191] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote: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? I think that is more than one number.
But it's still only numbers. And he can make Fozzie do it. Fozzie loves numbers. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
839
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:16:00 -
[192] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.
Noooooooooo, about 2 weeks ago i finally finished all my manufacturing accounts to have one POS gunner each, couldn't you have gotten that flash of genius a bit earlier? Besides that, what are the official reactions to the array capacity and lab feedback on the last few pages?? Go put bubbles on random null gates Laugh as you then cloak up and they freak |
Circumstantial Evidence
114
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:18:00 -
[193] - Quote
Lowering the skill requirements for pos gunnery, is itself an increase in POS damage, when averaged across the player base. More corps will be able to field gunners with this change. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
406
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:44:00 -
[194] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Lowering the skill requirements for pos gunnery, is itself an increase in POS damage, when averaged across the player base. More corps will be able to field gunners with this change.
that's the idea |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
500
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:48:00 -
[195] - Quote
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.
fire ze missiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
319
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:53:00 -
[196] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. vive la france
|
Red Teufel
Mafia Redux
378
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:54:00 -
[197] - Quote
I like the changes except now let us drop dreads in highsec to RF these towers pls. |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:00:00 -
[198] - Quote
I was actually just watching the Industry Devblog post where the suggestion to lower the Anchoring requirement for Starbase Defense Management to 4 was discussed, to large applause. I'll go along with that :)
The Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2006" |
Erasmus Phoenix
Balls to the Walls No Response
98
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:07:00 -
[199] - Quote
Capqu 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. fire ze missiles
Please don't tell me you've put missiles on your POS :D |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3437
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:15:00 -
[200] - 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. |
|
|
Gothikia
Regeneration
278
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:18:00 -
[201] - Quote
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.
About god damn time! :P <3 Gothie |
remco1
Vengance Inc. Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:20:00 -
[202] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
guess people who trained anchoring 5 for posguns get skillpoints back then ?? |
Erasmus Phoenix
Balls to the Walls No Response
98
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:21:00 -
[203] - Quote
You still get to use large T2 bubbles |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1166
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:35:00 -
[204] - Quote
remco1 wrote:
guess people who trained anchoring 5 for posguns get skillpoints back then ??
Of course, CCP always reimburses skills when they change things, have you not been getting a ton of SP every patch? |
Iosue
Black Sky Hipsters
284
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:52:00 -
[205] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Seraphina Amaranth wrote:So is there any incentive to run more than one of each type of lab/array any more? that you're using them as storage :v:
along that line, can we get a new CHA size? i mean its kinda silly to keep using assembly arrays in place of CHA's as a work around. having another Large CHA that matches the size and fitting requirements of the large ship assembly array would be great. |
Batelle
Tymast Industries 150th
2584
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:52:00 -
[206] - Quote
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.
\o/ "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Erasmus Phoenix
Balls to the Walls No Response
98
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:55:00 -
[207] - Quote
Iosue wrote:Weaselior wrote:Seraphina Amaranth wrote:So is there any incentive to run more than one of each type of lab/array any more? that you're using them as storage :v: along that line, can we get a new CHA size? i mean its kinda silly to keep using assembly arrays in place of CHA's as a work around. having another Large CHA that matches the size and fitting requirements of the large ship assembly array would be great.
I believe they said CHAs are getting more than twice the capacity |
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
139
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 15:02:00 -
[208] - Quote
Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill? Dear lord, please help me deal with the insufferable.... |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
664
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 15:04:00 -
[209] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill?
Yes. You can expect to still be able to do everything that you could before. Nothing is changing that will effect you. Now stop complaining.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
839
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 15:04:00 -
[210] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill? No Go build an outpost |
|
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
366
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 15:06:00 -
[211] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill?
Read your own signature . . . I am not an alt of Chribba. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3440
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 15:14:00 -
[212] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill? You can expect a big fat HTFU from me, as I've trained anchoring 5 on no less than twelve characters in the past couple months, and am fine with this. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Arkon Olacar
Imperial Guardians Spaceship Samurai
344
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 15:38:00 -
[213] - Quote
Now that you're buffing the Phoenix can CCP refund all my gunnery skills so I can retrain into citadel torps
/s Warping to zero |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
335
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 15:53:00 -
[214] - Quote
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. O COMON i just trained up anchoring 5 just for this skill.
SP reimbursement! |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
619
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:03:00 -
[215] - Quote
remco1 wrote:guess people who trained anchoring 5 for posguns get skillpoints back then ??
Spectre Wraith wrote:Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill?
Flyinghotpocket wrote:O COMON i just trained up anchoring 5 just for this skill.
SP reimbursement!
All of you are why we so rarely get nice things :(
If everyone got a free titan in the next patch you'd probably complain it was the wrong colour. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
840
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:04:00 -
[216] - Quote
I wanted a blood raider titan When is CCP Scarpia releasing the new skins? |
Kateryna I
Lords Of The Universe Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:05:00 -
[217] - Quote
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.
god damn, just trained so many chars to anchoring 5, had I known that :[
Anyway, makes my life easer going forward... Polish PVP corp looking for members to have some fun together. Join me! Check our KB |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5120
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:06:00 -
[218] - Quote
What ever you do, an unmanned POS should NOT lock any faster than they do now. The Paradox |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
840
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:13:00 -
[219] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:What ever you do, an unmanned POS should NOT lock any faster than they do now. why not? Do they randomly shoot people still? |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
665
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:15:00 -
[220] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:What ever you do, an unmanned POS should NOT lock any faster than they do now.
Agreed. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:16:00 -
[221] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:What ever you do, an unmanned POS should NOT lock any faster than they do now. why not? Do they randomly shoot people still?
Yes, poachers with siphons |
Sigras
Conglomo
753
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:17:00 -
[222] - Quote
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 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. do iiiiiiiittttt! That would be awesome! |
ElectronHerd Askulf
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:54:00 -
[223] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
So SDM gets easier to train to support the increased use of POSes while the isotope market gets mucked with because there will be fewer?
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1535
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:58:00 -
[224] - Quote
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. So SDM gets easier to train to support the increased use of POSes while the isotope market gets mucked with because there will be fewer?
I believe their stated reasoning was SMALLER ones in the isotope change. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction
455
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:12:00 -
[225] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....
MODULAR STARBASES!!
There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases.
This. We've been demanding this feature for seven years now. CCP provides a service, why are we not being served? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3182
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:17:00 -
[226] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:Spectre Wraith wrote:These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....
MODULAR STARBASES!!
There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases. This. We've been demanding this feature for seven years now. CCP provides a service, why are we not being served?
Because they're working on all the background services needed, before modular starbases are really viable?
Like corporation management. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3182
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:19:00 -
[227] - Quote
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.) Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:55:00 -
[228] - 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.)
+1. Cool bonus, but please let the math be doable for non-programmer excel warriors. |
Sigras
Conglomo
753
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:57:00 -
[229] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: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.) the tools are already being changed, and it only slightly adversely effects BPCs depending on how the rounding works.
Speaking of which, how does the rounding for a discount work? does it roundUp roundDown or just roundClose?
how would a 2% Material cost bonus effect a theoretical item taking 24 trit? 25 trit? 26 trit? |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
336
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:58:00 -
[230] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:remco1 wrote:guess people who trained anchoring 5 for posguns get skillpoints back then ?? Spectre Wraith wrote:Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill? Flyinghotpocket wrote:O COMON i just trained up anchoring 5 just for this skill.
SP reimbursement! All of you are why we so rarely get nice things :( If everyone got a free titan in the next patch you'd probably complain it was the wrong colour. i wouldnt. i never go into null. i have no reason to ever anchor bubbles. lowsec is where i live. |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
974
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:07:00 -
[231] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:Spectre Wraith wrote:These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....
MODULAR STARBASES!!
There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases. This. We've been demanding this feature for seven years now. CCP provides a service, why are we not being served?
Beware. "Served" applies to both sides of the transaction.
Next Stop, The Twilight Zone.
"To Serve Man"
"It's a cookbook!!!!!"
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
974
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:12:00 -
[232] - Quote
Iosue wrote:Weaselior wrote:Seraphina Amaranth wrote:So is there any incentive to run more than one of each type of lab/array any more? that you're using them as storage :v: along that line, can we get a new CHA size? i mean its kinda silly to keep using assembly arrays in place of CHA's as a work around. having another Large CHA that matches the size and fitting requirements of the large ship assembly array would be great.
I agree. CHA should be at least as large as the largest storage of any assembly array.... and take the same power and cpu....
Oh, wait....
Maybe CHA, with lower cpu and power, OR assembly array with larger capacity but higher fitting needs, is meaningful game play decision. The kind of trade off CCP is looking for. |
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:14:00 -
[233] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: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.)
Yes, that would change a lot.
I manufacture a lot of things that require small numbers of components and thus have very low perfect ME. It would completely change landscape of T2 rigs for example where 1 component like Intact Armor Plates is worth 3M ISK. Decryptor math would change a lot because adiitional runs on BPCs could add or remove some material due to rounding.
Worst scenario that I can imagine is having to produce less runs than BPC has (because with more runs, more high-value material would be used). |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3182
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:24:00 -
[234] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote: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.) the tools are already being changed, and it only slightly adversely effects BPCs depending on how the rounding works. Speaking of which, how does the rounding for a discount work? does it roundUp roundDown or just roundClose? how would a 2% Material cost bonus effect a theoretical item taking 24 trit? 25 trit? 26 trit?
Heh. These are details I'm wanting to get my hands on too.
Along with a copy of the SDE to play with (and convert. From third party session, blueprint stuff will be in yaml)
Important questions:
When do numbers get rounded. Regular ME per run, bonus from array via job?
There are edge cases where doing it either way is beneficial. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5121
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:33:00 -
[235] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:What ever you do, an unmanned POS should NOT lock any faster than they do now. why not? Because I know the motivation behind the suggestion and it has very little to do with a manned POS's lock time. The Paradox |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5121
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:33:00 -
[236] - Quote
-double post- The Paradox |
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:54:00 -
[237] - Quote
It seems that this patch is exactly I've expected :-( My job is mostly doing Cap and sometimes SCap-Production with a few other people.
In an older Dev-Blog I read announcements about: - reducing reprocessing efficiency for NPC stations (reprocressing - not reffining!) - improving research and manufaturing at POS - greatly improving copying times to efficiently work with BPC's!
Now, I read:
Time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.65).
Now an Archon takes 26 Days instead of 28 Days - great Deal especially in doubt the BPO's have to reside at the POS! ===> Job "working with BPC's" dead!
Capital/Supercapital Ship Assembly Array with !!0!!% waste or time change - beside the other arrays which all got boosts.
Now it takes the same time but instead of doing logistics with few freighters I have to bring in tons of mins since mineral-compression by creating/refining items is no longer possible. ===> Job "SCAP production as not so big player" dead too!
Sorry, but I don't see any improvements (at least for player doing in research and production).
Even there is no improvement for new players trying research and production since they would need a POS to do anything useful which can eventually be sold on the market with some profit. (even if CCP so often tells us that anything is going to be noob-friendly)
But it seems that is the way to go... and go more and more offline for high SP casual players.
|
thetwilitehour
Vasilkovsky Interstellar
259
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 19:56:00 -
[238] - 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?
Buff the guns scanres by 200% per level of anchoring. |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 20:52:00 -
[239] - Quote
thetwilitehour wrote: Buff the guns scanres by 200% per level of anchoring.
I definitely approve this idea. Makes the skill at V useful outside of bubbles/outpost building and solves the scanres issue of manned POSes in an elegant way. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
841
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 20:56:00 -
[240] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:What ever you do, an unmanned POS should NOT lock any faster than they do now. why not? Because I know the motivation behind the suggestion and it has very little to do with a manned POS's lock time. Could you private mail me why? Im now curious |
|
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
140
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 20:57:00 -
[241] - Quote
Sure is alot of raging at a simple question. I personally don't care if they offer any reimbursement for the skill or not, as it's still useful for anchoring T2 bubbles, etc.
Try CalmingTFU a little. ;) Dear lord, please help me deal with the insufferable.... |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7306
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 21:00:00 -
[242] - Quote
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. how dare you i insist you refund my anchoring v skillpoints immediately you are making this game too simple
just kidding Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
620
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 21:29:00 -
[243] - Quote
thetwilitehour wrote:Buff the guns scanres by 200% per level of anchoring.
A) Anyone with SDM trained can control up to 8 guns (F1-F8, like mods). B) Anchoring makes guns lock faster by 10% per level (up to 50% lock time) C) SDM improves weapon ROF while controlled by 5% per level (up to 75% of normal ROF)
Yay for fully armed and operational deathstars. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
312
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 21:48:00 -
[244] - Quote
If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort?
And CCP still has said nothing useful about the coming office apocalypse. I guess that is intended. Yes, I'm mad that I've repeatedly attempted to engage in reasonable conversation about it, and the devs apparently just can't be bothered to even reply.
MDD |
Clansworth
Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels
66
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 22:02:00 -
[245] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:I like the changes except now let us drop dreads in highsec to RF these towers pls. Bastion mode... |
Alundil
Rolled Out
500
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 22:17:00 -
[246] - 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? Agreed. Clone mechanics enchancements Deep Space Probe Revival |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 22:28:00 -
[247] - Quote
Clansworth wrote:Red Teufel wrote:I like the changes except now let us drop dreads in highsec to RF these towers pls. Bastion mode...
doesnt increase dps just range so kinda meh for shooting a pos |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
55
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 22:48:00 -
[248] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Clansworth wrote:Red Teufel wrote:I like the changes except now let us drop dreads in highsec to RF these towers pls. Bastion mode... doesnt increase dps just range so kinda meh for shooting a pos
It does, however, increase local tank and completely neutralize dickstars by being immune to ECM. Also, range bonuses actually do translate directly into a damage increase with the possible exceptions of the Paladin (not sure on pulse optimal, although you might be able to shift to T2 damage ammo) and the Golem. |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 22:49:00 -
[249] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort?
A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS.
It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs. |
Jacabon Mere
Capital Storm. Black Flag Society
78
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 23:32:00 -
[250] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort?
And CCP still has said nothing useful about the coming office apocalypse. I guess that is intended. Yes, I'm mad that I've repeatedly attempted to engage in reasonable conversation about it, and the devs apparently just can't be bothered to even reply.
MDD
And when they get 10 kestrel bpo's I will laugh. Most bpo's aren't that valuable. It may take some time, but pos shooting people will soon figure it out. Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Lowsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net |
|
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries Solar Assault Fleet
1098
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 23:49:00 -
[251] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Sigras wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote: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.) the tools are already being changed, and it only slightly adversely effects BPCs depending on how the rounding works. Speaking of which, how does the rounding for a discount work? does it roundUp roundDown or just roundClose? how would a 2% Material cost bonus effect a theoretical item taking 24 trit? 25 trit? 26 trit? Heh. These are details I'm wanting to get my hands on too. Along with a copy of the SDE to play with (and convert. From third party session, blueprint stuff will be in yaml) Important questions: When do numbers get rounded. Regular ME per run, bonus from array via job? There are edge cases where doing it either way is beneficial. Hmm, I just got scared.
Will all the wonderful data and services you've made available now have to pass the dreaded NDA?
(I trust your ability to keep it data apart, but will CCP?)
CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1757
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 23:55:00 -
[252] - Quote
[ Insert ****** forum post about how I only trained anchoring V for pos guns and I want my SP back because T2 large bubbles alone aren't really worth the SP spent Grrrrrr HERE ]
Yes....these are.......good........positive........changes. I'm so ..... happy .... for all the people that don't have to train anchoring V. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3448
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 00:32:00 -
[253] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:Spectre Wraith wrote:These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....
MODULAR STARBASES!!
There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases. This. We've been demanding this feature for seven years now. CCP provides a service, why are we not being served?
Because of whiny, demanding children like yourself.
NEONOVUS wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Because I know the motivation behind the suggestion and it has very little to do with a manned POS's lock time. Could you private mail me why? Im now curious
Because he's very grrgoons and thinks I'm proposing it as a means to defend our towers against siphons. Which, you know, is why I specifically noted in my post that a buff to scan res should happen in a way that doesn't necessarily improve the lock time of an unmanned tower, such as a corresponding increase in the time before a POS will attempt to lock at all. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 00:42:00 -
[254] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Cygnet Lythanea wrote:Spectre Wraith wrote:These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....
MODULAR STARBASES!!
There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases. This. We've been demanding this feature for seven years now. CCP provides a service, why are we not being served? Because of whiny, demanding children like yourself. NEONOVUS wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Because I know the motivation behind the suggestion and it has very little to do with a manned POS's lock time. Could you private mail me why? Im now curious Because he's very grrgoons and thinks I'm proposing it as a means to defend our towers against siphons. Which, you know, is why I specifically noted in my post that a buff to scan res should happen in a way that doesn't necessarily improve the lock time of an unmanned tower, such as a corresponding increase in the time before a POS will attempt to lock at all.
The idea about anchoring skill increasing scan res of guns under your control was a pretty elegant solution |
Sigras
Conglomo
754
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 00:54:00 -
[255] - Quote
Korthan Doshu wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort? A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS. It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs. Guys... both arrays mean that there are potentially BPOs in the POS
Unless you've devised some clever way to copy without a BPO? |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2846
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 01:07:00 -
[256] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:I like the changes except now let us drop dreads in highsec to RF these towers pls.
This, or at least make highsec POSes small only. Small ones are fine to pop with battleships.
Better again, introduce a tech 2 subcapital ship that can siege into an anti-structure platform.
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. |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 01:43:00 -
[257] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort? A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS. It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs. Guys... both arrays mean that there are potentially BPOs in the POS Unless you've devised some clever way to copy without a BPO?
Nobody should be doing invention with anything other than ME0/PE0 BPOs. But if you're using researched BPOs to copy from your POS, well...duly noted. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3448
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 03:33:00 -
[258] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: The idea about anchoring skill increasing scan res of guns under your control was a pretty elegant solution
It is although I suspect it would require coding some new bonuses and possibly other interactions with the POS code, which should generally understood to be scary. Bumping scanres by a factor of 10 and then increasing POS lock delay by some suitably large number does the same thing as anchoring 5, but would probably just be playing with existing stats, far less scary. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Ragnen Delent
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 04:57:00 -
[259] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote: The idea about anchoring skill increasing scan res of guns under your control was a pretty elegant solution
It is although I suspect it would require coding some new bonuses and possibly other interactions with the POS code, which should generally understood to be scary. Bumping scanres by a factor of 10 and then increasing POS lock delay by some suitably large number does the same thing as anchoring 5, but would probably just be playing with existing stats, far less scary.
Hey, if it is possible though, it would at least stem the tide of "I don't need anchoring V please refund my sp" tears. |
Sigras
Conglomo
754
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 05:30:00 -
[260] - Quote
Korthan Doshu wrote:Sigras wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort? A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS. It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs. Guys... both arrays mean that there are potentially BPOs in the POS Unless you've devised some clever way to copy without a BPO? Nobody should be doing invention with anything other than ME0/PE0 BPOs. But if you're using researched BPOs to copy from your POS, well...duly noted. Thats not a relevant factor
If you're inventing command ships/marauders/BLOPS/JFs then you still have billions of ISK worth of BPOs in that tower.
researched BPOs arent actually worth that much more than stock BPOs |
|
larf1986
Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 09:38:00 -
[261] - Quote
Is there anything in the pipeline to add a personal SMA much like the Personal Hanger? |
Ian Stanley
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 09:41:00 -
[262] - Quote
Sir Werner 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. Can we get the skills point back for Anchoring 5?
why would you want a refund? with anchoring 5 you can still anchor t2 large bubble and build an outpost (not sure what the actual requirement to anchor the said outpost)
with them at 5 now (pre Kronos) you open up 3 things - starbase def management, abilities to anchor t2 large bubble and the abilitiy to manufacture oupost (you still need indy 5) |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
686
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 10:28:00 -
[263] - 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 |
|
Oxide Ammar
118
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 10:31:00 -
[264] - Quote
[Idea] Make assembly arrays, moon harvesting able to be overloaded (overheated) but rather than damaging the array it will consume more fuel on benefit of manufacturing or harvesting faster. |
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 10:39:00 -
[265] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Great! Time to research those rig BPOs to ME10 :-) |
Rust Connor
Industrias PapaCapim
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 11:22:00 -
[266] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
OMG, WAIT!
1) Simple example 1: Muninn - 2% ME array + BPO 0ME - 50 runs batch I'll need 49 Ruptures (+everything else), right?
2) Simple example 2: Muninn - 2% ME array + BPO 10ME (10%) - 50 runs batch I'll need 44 Ruptures (+everything else), right? Or is 45 Ruptures? Is 50*0.88 or 50*0.9*0.98?
3) Simple example 3: Muninn - 2% ME array + BPO 10ME - 50 times 1 run batch I'll need 50 Ruptures (+everything else), right?
Good lord. I need an extra month to prepare myself.... |
It Maybeatrap
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 13:04:00 -
[267] - Quote
Ian Stanley wrote:with them at 5 now (pre Kronos) you open up 3 things - starbase def management, No, that's open at 4
Ian Stanley wrote:abilities to anchor t2 large bubble and the abilitiy to manufacture oupost (you still need indy 5) Let's be honest how relevant anchoring specifically a t2 large bubble is to most pos sitters? How many of them are gonna build an outpost?
IMO anchoring is missing some per-level bonus, say even 5% reduction in anchor/online time would make up for some of the irk of having 630k skillpoints going from a mandatory sp bump and of some value for character sale to being 100% useless. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3185
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 13:12:00 -
[268] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Well, that's a really significant change. I like. It does mean that sometimes a lower number of runs is more efficient, but that's just another knob to twiddle. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7313
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 13:20:00 -
[269] - Quote
Rust Connor wrote:[ I'll need 49 Ruptures (+everything else), right?
i believe they've said that the t1 item for t2 can never go below (or above) 1:1, unlike every other component Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 13:24:00 -
[270] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:i believe they've said that the t1 item for t2 can never go below (or above) 1:1, unlike every other component
So it's an extra material behaviour after extra materials are removed.
|
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 13:31:00 -
[271] - Quote
Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:Weaselior wrote:i believe they've said that the t1 item for t2 can never go below (or above) 1:1, unlike every other component So it's an extra material behaviour after extra materials are removed.
Exactly. All materials are equal now, but some are still more equal than others... |
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 13:37:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3.
I know it has been mentioned but try 10 million? Will still need a handful to deliver super capitals. Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
312
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 13:48:00 -
[273] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
You do realize that is yet another buff to T2 BPOs, right? Because T2 BPCs don't have enough runs to make a difference with a 1-5% reduction in materials.
Dear CCP, Do you have a freaking clue about what you're doing?
MDD |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
401
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:24:00 -
[274] - Quote
Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. Great! Time to research those rig BPOs to ME10 :-)
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
Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:30:00 -
[275] - Quote
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. |
Rust Connor
Industrias PapaCapim
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:39:00 -
[276] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. Great! Time to research those rig BPOs to ME10 :-) 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
That is the question: If I have a BPO ME10, do I get a "free" item every 10 itens I build?!
Formula is: a) Round(Runs*Material*0.9) = 1 free item every 10 runs b) Runs*Round(Material*0.9) = its what we got today...
Maybe he didn't want to include the blueprint on the list? Anyway, even the 5% of team means we would have a free item every 20...
|
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
312
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:42:00 -
[277] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Just to show this is a T2 BPO buff:
A standard invented Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II (EANM2) required per run: 2 Megacyte 381 Mexallon 5 Morphite 665 Pyerite 1190 Tritanium 2 Zydrine
Takes 3:20 (h:mm) to build one unit (using blueprint-reported time), and there are 10 runs on the BPC. A 4% reduction in material doesn't reduce Megacyte or Zydrine at all. A T2 BPO, by virtue of having nearly limitless runs (limited to 30d runs) doesn't suffer this round off.
MDD
|
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:54:00 -
[278] - Quote
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... |
Marcus Iunius Brutus
NerdRage Inc.
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 15:25:00 -
[279] - Quote
Korthan Doshu wrote:How do we know it's round() and not roundup()? I didn't catch a definitive statement...
Currently it's always round() in all material related calculations.
|
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
401
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 15:34:00 -
[280] - Quote
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...
Since they are toying still with formula its best to wait untill final numbers will be release after all feedback is processed. Whatever it will be round or floor or ceil the premise is the same - get all bpo to me10 equivalent asap Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
|
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
56
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 15:47:00 -
[281] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Please confirm, is this just for the material discounts from facilities, or does this take effect for ME rounding too?
It makes a big difference when you're building, say, 50+ small rigs per batch whether 10% ME reduces things from, say, 3*100 to 300 or reduces things from 3*100 to 270. |
Sigras
Conglomo
755
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 16:07:00 -
[282] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. You do realize that is yet another buff to T2 BPOs, right? Because T2 BPCs don't have enough runs to make a difference with a 1-5% reduction in materials. Dear CCP, Do you have a freaking clue about what you're doing? MDD As long as they're not increasing the yield IE output per day, then it doesnt effect inventors at all; it just helps the BPO owners make more ISK. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
401
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 16:11:00 -
[283] - Quote
Max Kolonko 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... Since they are toying still with formula its best to wait untill final numbers will be release after all feedback is processed. Whatever it will be round or floor or ceil the premise is the same - get all bpo to me10 equivalent asap
Correction - IT MAKES HUGE DIFFRENCE IF IT IS ROUND OR ROUNDUP
example:
BPO, ME 6%, basic material requirments (before modyfiers) 10 x tritanium
1. ROUNDUP() 2 jobs 1 run = 2 x ROUNDUP(10*1*,94)=20 1 job 2 run = 1 x ROUNDUP(10*2*,94)=19 So we save 1 unit of tritanium by running 2 run job instead of 2 jobs with 1 run each
2. ROUND() 2 jobs 1 run = 2 x ROUND(10*1*,94)=18 1 job 2 run = 1 x ROUND(10*2*,94)=19 !!!!!!! So WE LOOSE 1 unit of tritanium by running 2 run job instead of 2 jobs with 1 run each
Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3185
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 16:55:00 -
[284] - Quote
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.
Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
688
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 17:09:00 -
[285] - 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 |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
988
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 17:28:00 -
[286] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
So the complexity moves from figuring out optimal ME on a BPO, to figuring out optimal batch size to get the smallest round up?
Nice.
This industry rework is such a cluster fk.
Look, as a programmer myself, I feel for you. Bad design, not thinking things threw, the rush to hit the iteration deadlines, the immovability of the deadlines, personnel leaving because of all of the above, feeding back into just making the problems worse....
Full speed ahead, even though we're heading straight toward our doom... because bosses can't eat crow and admit the design sucks.... so hack, hack, hack.... More hatchet and machete than keyboard at this point.
What can we do to salvage the design at this point???? Ummmmm.... 2% ME bonus for POS and hack he material usage to round at the job instead of run level.... hack, hack, hack..... |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 17:40:00 -
[287] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
Why not throw all the manufacturers a bone and floor() materials? Ofc plus at the same time ensuring that they cannot go below 1
|
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 17:47:00 -
[288] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:[quote=Max Kolonko]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.
Let me just say that I think this is imminently reasonable and not a cluster. |
Marsan
220
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 17:59:00 -
[289] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort? A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS. It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs. Guys... both arrays mean that there are potentially BPOs in the POS Unless you've devised some clever way to copy without a BPO?
Yes but Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs require BPOs to do anything. You won't be able to tell if they are copying a BPO, but you will know if they are researching a BPO. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
401
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 18:24:00 -
[290] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:Max Kolonko wrote: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.
So what was the equation to calculate new ME10% from old ME level? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
|
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
991
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 19:27:00 -
[291] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:
So what was the equation to calculate new ME10% from old ME level?
Figure out the old waste % and then round down, subtract from 10. ME 1 = 5% waste = 5% reduction ME2 = 3.33% waste = 3% round = 7% reduction ME3 = 2.5% waste = 2% round = 8% reduction ME4 = 2% = 8% reduction ME5-ME8 = 1% round = 9% reduction ME9 = 1% = 9% reduction ME10 = .09% waste = 0% round down = 10% reduction. Better then ME10 = 10% reduction.
|
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
401
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 19:30:00 -
[292] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Max Kolonko wrote:
So what was the equation to calculate new ME10% from old ME level?
Figure out the old waste % and then round down, subtract from 10. ME 1 = 5% waste = 5% reduction ME2 = 3.33% waste = 3% round = 7% reduction ME3 = 2.5% waste = 2% round = 8% reduction ME4 = 2% = 8% reduction ME5-ME8 = 1% round = 9% reduction ME9 = 1% = 9% reduction ME10 = .09% waste = 0% round down = 10% reduction. Better then ME10 = 10% reduction.
thx, just found it in the blog but Yours is more clear :) Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1048
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 21:31:00 -
[293] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. I do T2 module invention and manufacture. Isn't this a buff to T2 BPO holders? I don't think this will make a significant difference to my manufacturing. Or have I miscalculated? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
EvilIsMyName
Exploitation Industrial Group Gold Star Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 21:54:00 -
[294] - Quote
BadAssMcKill wrote:Pos fix when
This expansion is the POS fix, by increasing the risk and taxing jobs, CCP's plan is to reduce or eliminate the usage of POS's everywhere but where they are actually needed, in null and in wormholes.
In 6 months, POS usage will drop by 60-70% and the squeeky wheel is no longer as squeeky and they will use their infamous tables and graphs to prove that POS's no longer need a major overhaul due to the incredible usage drop across New Eden. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
313
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 22:03:00 -
[295] - Quote
EvilIsMyName wrote:This expansion is the POS fix, by increasing the risk and taxing jobs, CCP's plan is to reduce or eliminate the usage of POS's everywhere but where they are actually needed, in null and in wormholes.
In 6 months, POS usage will drop by 60-70% and the squeeky wheel is no longer as squeeky and they will use their infamous tables and graphs to prove that POS's no longer need a major overhaul due to the incredible usage drop across New Eden. That is a particularly malevolent interpretation and projection. I'm mad about aspects of this, too, but let's treat the Dev's as if they're human and not minions of Satan.
MDD |
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 23:32:00 -
[296] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
To echo others in this thread: this is really awesome. But it does feel a bit like a slap in the face for ship/rig invention, in which your BPCs nearly always only have 1-3 runs to begin with. Even though we're installing dozens of identical jobs at once, we get no benefit out of this, as we're forced to work with low-run BPCs. |
Sigras
Conglomo
756
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 23:56:00 -
[297] - Quote
Marsan wrote:Sigras wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort? A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS. It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs. Guys... both arrays mean that there are potentially BPOs in the POS Unless you've devised some clever way to copy without a BPO? Yes but Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs require BPOs to do anything. You won't be able to tell if they are copying a BPO, but you will know if they are researching a BPO. This is true, however:
1. Invention requires copies, so it's reasonable to assume that an inventor is copying BPOs to fund his own invention. 2. 3/4 of the research jobs require a BPO meaning there is no way to split the activities up that doesnt guarantee BPOs are in one or the other. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 07:00:00 -
[298] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
To echo others in this thread: this is really awesome. But it does feel a bit like a slap in the face for ship/rig invention, in which your BPCs nearly always only have 1-3 runs to begin with. Even though we're installing dozens of identical jobs at once, we get no benefit out of this, as we're forced to work with low-run BPCs.
On the other hand, rig BPOs are dirt cheap and research in a couple days maximum. Short of capital rigs, I'd feel pretty comfortable putting my 2M ISK + research time BPOs in a POS, especially if I either expected to be able to defend it or thought I could get it down in time to dodge a wardec. |
Grigori Annunaki
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 08:47:00 -
[299] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. This sounds unfortunate for the T2 inventor, since all T2 blueprints require 1 of the T1 thing to manufacture. Since we're starting -40% in the hole and no decryptor gets us positive, we'll need more T1 going in than T2 coming out, which is a bit silly. For small T2 items, the new calculations can double the current manufacturing cost.
For example, the ever-popular Acolyte II currently requires the following to build (base):
1x Acolyte I 1x Laser Focusing Crystals 1x Guidance Systems 1x Robotics 1x Morphite (2 at ME -4)
After the change in Kronos, I imagine these numbers will remain the same.
[1, 10] runs, at -40% ME (POS or not doesn't matter), will look something like this:
[2, 14]x Acolyte I (10 x 1.00 x 1.40 x 0.98 = 13.72, goes to 14) [2, 14]x Laser Focusing Crystals [2, 14]x Guidance Systems [2, 14]x Robotics [2, 14]x Morphite
Low-run BPCs in general get hammered by the CEIL change, those with small material input even moreso. T2 light drones get hit with a roughly 40% cost increase across the board, which is admittedly the worst-case scenario.
For small material quantities, there's a rough break-even point at 8 runs in a POS where you get 37.5% waste (11 for 8 runs) of the theoretical 37.2% minimum waste. Of course, that leaves you with 2 remaining runs at 50% waste (3 for 2 runs), which gets you back to 14 for 10 runs, or 40% waste. Without a POS, 5 and 10 runs are the most efficient.
I made a chart to more clearly illustrate things |
Quadpush
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 09:17:00 -
[300] - Quote
I've got a question: what will be the difference of different races POSes (eg. Caldari, Gallente etc.)? Currently they differ in the CPU/PWG and it affects the number of labs/arrays you can online. In summer all POSes will be equal or do they get any racial differences? |
|
Lady Aesir
Ghost Recon Inc
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 09:23:00 -
[301] - Quote
Quadpush wrote:I've got a question: what will be the difference of different races POSes (eg. Caldari, Gallente etc.)? Currently they differ in the CPU/PWG and it affects the number of labs/arrays you can online. In summer all POSes will be equal or do they get any racial differences? They would have to be different or everyone would use the one with the cheapest available fuel.
|
Belinda HwaFang
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 09:26:00 -
[302] - Quote
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 |
Sigras
Conglomo
758
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 09:58:00 -
[303] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. Please tell me that "Blueprints" was in there by accident... Otherwise we could get some sort of crazy rounding issue where you need to research an already "perfect" BPO to get a better yield for a long run.
Im just assuming that there is another CEILING() function on BPs for their base material requirements before teams and facilities are factored in... right? |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 12:13:00 -
[304] - Quote
Why would it be a bad thing for ME10 to always be the real perfect? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3469
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 12:18:00 -
[305] - 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. |
|
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
313
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 13:03:00 -
[306] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. All the interesting points in the thread and *that* is the one you choose to respond to?
MDD |
Plug in Baby
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 13:29:00 -
[307] - Quote
Will there be a lowsec capital component assembly array as mentioned at Fanfest? This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 15:38:00 -
[308] - Quote
Plug in Baby wrote:Will there be a lowsec capital component assembly array as mentioned at Fanfest?
MAYBE
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4557072#post4557072
But, if Greyscale is working on it, will take at least 3 balance passes before it doesn't suck |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 15:46:00 -
[309] - Quote
TBF, it's an important clarification.
That said, I'd really like an answer about whether ME is calculated per-run or per-job, because it makes a big difference on low-material-count many-runs-per-day things like small rigs. |
Marsan
220
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 17:59:00 -
[310] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Marsan wrote:Sigras wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:MailDeadDrop wrote:If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort? A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS. It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs. Guys... both arrays mean that there are potentially BPOs in the POS Unless you've devised some clever way to copy without a BPO? Yes but Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs require BPOs to do anything. You won't be able to tell if they are copying a BPO, but you will know if they are researching a BPO. This is true, however: 1. Invention requires copies, so it's reasonable to assume that an inventor is copying BPOs to fund his own invention. 2. 3/4 of the research jobs require a BPO meaning there is no way to split the activities up that doesnt guarantee BPOs are in one or the other.
I suspect a lot of people will simply make BPCs in station for safety sake for any BPO of any real value as copying in station appears to still be pretty cheap, and fast for most items. BPOs are unlike most items in Eve. If my ship explodes or gets stolen I can generally just buy a new one. If I lose a BPO it might take months to fully research another. Even if I'm willing to buy one I may have trouble finding one researched to my desired level and for a reasonable price. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community. |
|
Proton Power
Evolution Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 18:23:00 -
[311] - Quote
Seems like a lot of change has happend due to this thread, but I have yet to see any updates on the Component Assembly Array numbers.
While the increase is nice, its not enough.... At current numbers you can build about 100 components (10 days worth) and thats it due to its limited size. So for me and many others we ahve to install multiple jobs because it won't allow us to build any decent sized batch, and then on top of this you have to move minreals around for every single job install. With the current increase it does up the build batch to about 15 days or gives more play room for 10 day batches, but I still have to move minerals every job install.
Please Re-Look into this. |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 19:24:00 -
[312] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:That said, I'd really like an answer about whether ME is calculated per-run or per-job, because it makes a big difference on low-material-count many-runs-per-day things like small rigs.
RTFT, you would have seen this post:
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
57
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 19:46:00 -
[313] - Quote
Korthan Doshu wrote:Ranamar wrote:That said, I'd really like an answer about whether ME is calculated per-run or per-job, because it makes a big difference on low-material-count many-runs-per-day things like small rigs. RTFT, you would have seen this post: CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
I saw that, but, given all the confusion surrounding it, I wasn't certain that he was actually making sure they were all in. I dunno; I remember it being less clear than that statement.
If that really is the case, it's time to research a bunch of T1 small rig blueprints. |
Korthan Doshu
Hedion University Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 21:27:00 -
[314] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:Ranamar wrote:That said, I'd really like an answer about whether ME is calculated per-run or per-job, because it makes a big difference on low-material-count many-runs-per-day things like small rigs. RTFT, you would have seen this post: CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. I saw that, but, given all the confusion surrounding it, I wasn't certain that he was actually making sure they were all in. I dunno; I remember it being less clear than that statement. If that really is the case, it's time to research a bunch of T1 small rig blueprints.
Yes. |
Arronicus
Ravens' Nest Outlaw Horizon.
954
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:34:00 -
[315] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:TBF, it's an important clarification. That said, I'd really like an answer about whether ME is calculated per-run or per-job, because it makes a big difference on low-material-count many-runs-per-day things like small rigs.
This was answered, it may be per run to start with, but they are intent on shifting it to per job, for the 2% savings, anyhow. I think one of the devs said they even have it working for the summer expansion already, to be job. |
Sigras
Conglomo
759
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 02:37:00 -
[316] - Quote
Marsan wrote:Sigras wrote:1. Invention requires copies, so it's reasonable to assume that an inventor is copying BPOs to fund his own invention. 2. 3/4 of the research jobs require a BPO meaning there is no way to split the activities up that doesnt guarantee BPOs are in one or the other. I suspect a lot of people will simply make BPCs in station for safety sake for any BPO of any real value as copying in station appears to still be pretty cheap, and fast for most items. BPOs are unlike most items in Eve. If my ship explodes or gets stolen I can generally just buy a new one. If I lose a BPO it might take months to fully research another. Even if I'm willing to buy one I may have trouble finding one researched to my desired level and for a reasonable price. This still doesnt fix the issue that there is no logical way to split up the research operations that doesnt leave one lab with only BPO research. |
Xindi Kraid
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
749
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 03:03:00 -
[317] - Quote
So what incentive is there to use a hyasyoda lab? At the moment it seems to be straight up inferior, which kind of sucks.
Bad Bobby wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3. I don't think this is sufficient. Is there any particular issue you are trying to avoid by keeping the storage on these arrays small? Wouldn't it be better just to make them big enough so that they aren't a massive pain to use? What they really need to do is just give the tower a corporate hangar and remove the corp hangar from all the other POS modules and instead replace them with a bonus to the tower's capacity. That could help solve the problem of not enough space in any one module while another has too much. Granted it does mean you stop being able to separate stuff by structure and tab, so organization suffers. |
Grigori Annunaki
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 05:42:00 -
[318] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote:What they really need to do is just give the tower a corporate hangar and remove the corp hangar from all the other POS modules and instead replace them with a bonus to the tower's capacity. That could help solve the problem of not enough space in any one module while another has too much. Granted it does mean you stop being able to separate stuff by structure and tab, so organization suffers. What they really need to do is make all the anchorable modules into pluggable addons for the POS. Then, they could share storage, support PI-style component routing, etc. A much more elegant design. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
842
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 12:34:00 -
[319] - Quote
Grigori Annunaki wrote:Xindi Kraid wrote:What they really need to do is just give the tower a corporate hangar and remove the corp hangar from all the other POS modules and instead replace them with a bonus to the tower's capacity. That could help solve the problem of not enough space in any one module while another has too much. Granted it does mean you stop being able to separate stuff by structure and tab, so organization suffers. What they really need to do is make all the anchorable modules into pluggable addons for the POS. Then, they could share storage, support PI-style component routing, etc. A much more elegant design. But, that's a dream for another time. If its so easy lets see some mock code here Me, Im going to go make pong and see if I can control it woth some accelerameters |
Xindi Kraid
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
752
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 16:56:00 -
[320] - Quote
Grigori Annunaki wrote:Xindi Kraid wrote:What they really need to do is just give the tower a corporate hangar and remove the corp hangar from all the other POS modules and instead replace them with a bonus to the tower's capacity. That could help solve the problem of not enough space in any one module while another has too much. Granted it does mean you stop being able to separate stuff by structure and tab, so organization suffers. What they really need to do is make all the anchorable modules into pluggable addons for the POS. Then, they could share storage, support PI-style component routing, etc. A much more elegant design. But, that's a dream for another time. Indeed, I hope the final outcome for POSes is modular structures we can dock in with the various modules adding geometry to the tower itself rather than just floating in space and all the things they do being centralized.
I think that's a ways off though, POSes are in a bad place and fixing them will take a lot of time and work, and that change also requires quite a lot of art assets as well as code.
In the mean time small changes to fix corporate roles and my suggestion to centralize usage improve POSes a little in the mean time. |
|
Proton Power
Evolution Northern Coalition.
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 22:08:00 -
[321] - Quote
Proton Power wrote:Seems like a lot of change has happend due to this thread, but I have yet to see any updates on the Component Assembly Array numbers.
While the increase is nice, its not enough.... At current numbers you can build about 100 components (10 days worth) and thats it due to its limited size. So for me and many others we ahve to install multiple jobs because it won't allow us to build any decent sized batch, and then on top of this you have to move minreals around for every single job install. With the current increase it does up the build batch to about 15 days or gives more play room for 10 day batches, but I still have to move minerals every job install.
Please Re-Look into this.
Any answers to this yet.
I can not grasp how the array that builds the largest items (other than ships) gets the smallest boost... |
Nalha Saldana
DEAD JESTERS The Harlequin's
800
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 23:51:00 -
[322] - Quote
You want people to build from BPC instead of BPOs but at the same time you remove copy slots from the standard research labs? Makes no sense. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
401
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 14:55:00 -
[323] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
I'm all for CEIL() for positive ME, however for negative ME this leads to strange results, where something that cost 1 unit of something for ME-1% costs two units of something. This puts T2 BPO owners once again at big advantage.
Using either Round() or Floor() to counter this will also cause problems as shown below:
Floor() 2 jobs, each 1 run of BPC ME-4%, basic cost 15 units of something gives us 2*Floor(15*1*1,04)=30 1 jobs, for 2 run of BPC ME-4%, basic cost 15 units of something gives us 1*Floor(15*2*1,04)=31
This shows that in some edge cases its better to run two jobs thatn 1 job for two runs
Round() 2 jobs, each 1 run of BPC ME-4%, basic cost 10 units of something gives us 2*Floor(10*1*1,04)=20 1 jobs, for 2 run of BPC ME-4%, basic cost 10 units of something gives us 1*Floor(10*2*1,04)=21
Same as above but shows up on diffrent parameters
Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Babbet Bunny
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 16:44:00 -
[324] - Quote
Another question about rounding:
When converting from the old base will ROUND(), FLOOR() or CEIL() be used?
If ROUND() is used all starting materials are about the same as 10 previous 10% waste.
If FLOOR() is used then some items will save components.
If CEIL() then the materials for all items will increase.
|
Alexei Stryker
Steiners Erben Die Konkurrenz
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 12:23:00 -
[325] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....
MODULAR STARBASES!!
There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases.
Requested since 2007 |
Lochiel
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 18:37:00 -
[326] - Quote
Any thoughts of changing POS's to be more inline with their outpost counter parts? Normalize PG/CPU. Amarr get production bonus, Caldari get research bonus, Minmatar get Refining/compression/Jump-Bridge bonus, Gallente keep their bonus to silo size?
Right now it seems that you use Gallente for reactions, Caldari for everything else, and Minmatar/Amarr if getting those fuels is easier. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
678
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 20:26:00 -
[327] - Quote
With the pushing back of Indy changes to Crius, will the POS changes also be pushed back? Yes/no/partly? GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 22:02:00 -
[328] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:With the pushing back of Indy changes to Crius, will the POS changes also be pushed back? Yes/no/partly?
read the comments on the forum thread linked on the dev blog for the change to the schedule
It is a mess and not sure what parts you are askign about
99% of pos stuff got moved back - not sure if any pos stuff is coming jun 3rd |
DeDes
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 22:39:00 -
[329] - Quote
Re: Corporate Hangar Arrays: from 1,400,000 m3 to 3,000,000 m3.
Nice but the idea is about 3 years too late.
When you changed corp hangers to be inaccessible during reinforcement timers and afterwards while shields are below 50% you made using corporate hangers one of the most dangerous ways to store stuff in towers. Smart people have found other safer ways.
|
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 13:34:00 -
[330] - 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.
I find this to be rather amusing... Imagine someone who forgot to fuel up their POS and had some sort of issue that prevented them from doing so for an extended period of time? All of the pilots flocked around that pos waiting for the thing to go pop and all the arrays to un-anchor/drop loot/ect ect.
LOL
I'm sure that the police will have a grace period where they will not attack the POS and the owners will have an opportunity to restock it, but no idea how long that might be as I didn't hear that part of fanfest.
o/ Celly Smunt Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |
|
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 13:57:00 -
[331] - 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. As has been said already, this is FAR insufficient for even moderate industry, much less major industry.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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]
I've been thinking about this and the devastating effect it will have on research POSes once slots go away, and have some ideas for your consideration. As several of us have said, the above numbers alone are insufficient to make using labs at a POS fiscally viable except perhaps at extreme volume. The time savings does not offset even the worst case (14% added cost) using an NPC station as compared to between 300M-500M per month in fuel costs if running a large station. My proposal is to use the above as base numbers, but to also add role bonuses to the labs appropriate to their specialty and tie them to an existing skill such as "Research." Alternatively, you could add a few skills such as "Research ME," Research TE," and "Research Copying." For example:
Research Labs role bonus: 5% bonus per level Research ME, 5% bonus per level Research TE
Design Labs role bonus: 5% bonus per level Research Copying, 5% bonus per level Research, 20% bonus to BPC runs per level Research Copying.
Hyasoda Labs role bonus: 10% bonus per level Research ME, 10% bonus per level Research TE
In this way each lab remains distinctive while offering meaningful incentive to utilize a POS as opposed to an NPC station. It also partially addresses the issue of low BPC run caps while allowing inventors to partially close the competitive gap with T2 BPO holders while taking nothing away from T2 BPO holders. Ideally, inventors should have a chance through skill and equipment to research a "perfect" BPC just as a T2 BPO holder may research the BPO to "perfect." Also, by adding further bonuses to research times, it addresses some of the ridiculously long research cycles which can be expected under the new system as unveiled. This benefits smaller and/or newer researchers and industrialists by allowing for less time needed before having a chance to become competitive. The main issue I see is in determining how to reconcile these ideas with player outposts. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
48
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 16:28:00 -
[332] - Quote
Temenus Alexander wrote: I've been thinking about this and the devastating effect it will have on research POSes once slots go away, and have some ideas for your consideration. As several of us have said, the above numbers alone are insufficient to make using labs at a POS fiscally viable except perhaps at extreme volume. The time savings does not offset even the worst case (14% added cost) using an NPC station as compared to between 300M-500M per month in fuel costs if running a large station. My proposal is to use the above as base numbers, but to also add role bonuses to the labs appropriate to their specialty and tie them to an existing skill such as "Research." Alternatively, you could add a few skills such as "Research ME," Research TE," and "Research Copying." For example:
Research Labs role bonus: 5% bonus per level Research ME, 5% bonus per level Research TE
Design Labs role bonus: 5% bonus per level Research Copying, 5% bonus per level Research, 20% bonus to BPC runs per level Research Copying.
Hyasoda Labs role bonus: 10% bonus per level Research ME, 10% bonus per level Research TE
In this way each lab remains distinctive while offering meaningful incentive to utilize a POS as opposed to an NPC station. It also partially addresses the issue of low BPC run caps while allowing inventors to partially close the competitive gap with T2 BPO holders while taking nothing away from T2 BPO holders. Ideally, inventors should have a chance through skill and equipment to research a "perfect" BPC just as a T2 BPO holder may research the BPO to "perfect." Also, by adding further bonuses to research times, it addresses some of the ridiculously long research cycles which can be expected under the new system as unveiled. This benefits smaller and/or newer researchers and industrialists by allowing for less time needed before having a chance to become competitive. The main issue I see is in determining how to reconcile these ideas with player outposts.
Those skills already exist
Science Research can't remember the third |
Sigras
Conglomo
763
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 16:48:00 -
[333] - Quote
The third is Metallurgy
Also, Temenus Alexander has clearly never done invention. As I explained here time is everything in invention, and a 40% bonus to copy time and a 50% bonus to invention time makes you WAY more isk |
Katherine Raven
ALTA Industries Intergalactic Conservation Movement
146
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 17:03:00 -
[334] - Quote
Issue: Lockdown of blueprints after changes
I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet as I'm far too lazy to scroll through the pages and pages of comments.
With the blueprint changes blueprints need to be in the POS in order to be researched. I can assume that in the event that someone decided to build off of one the same would be true. The issue I have with this is in regards to blue print lockdown. Currently I can lock down all my blueprints, then give my members access to that hangar division and allow them to run ME jobs, PE jobs, copy jobs, or invention jobs, without me having to worry about anyone walking away with the blueprints. However under the new system with blueprints having to be in the POS module itself, I'm limited to two real options
1) have very strict limitations on who is even allowed INTO my POS, (which defeats the idea of it being a safe haven for corp members). This would allow people to remotely start jobs, but would mean that they would have to wait for me to be online if they need anything moved around or added.
2) expose every single blueprint that is being researched, or is waiting for research, to potential theft. I myself am not worried about this but I'm sure there are many who would be heavily affected by this.
Now if we CAN actually lock blueprints down in a POS, this creates a really dangerous situation. If I get war dec'd, I have 24 hours before the POS can be shot at. However the unlock vote is ALSO 24 hours. So unless I happen to be online when the war gets declared, it could be several hours before I'm even aware that war is imminent. While that still gives me plenty of time to get my defenses in order, it does NOT give me enough time to evac my blueprints.
Are there any plans to accommodate this situation or are researchers just SOL? |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 17:29:00 -
[335] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Temenus Alexander wrote: I've been thinking about this and the devastating effect it will have on research POSes once slots go away, and have some ideas for your consideration. As several of us have said, the above numbers alone are insufficient to make using labs at a POS fiscally viable except perhaps at extreme volume. The time savings does not offset even the worst case (14% added cost) using an NPC station as compared to between 300M-500M per month in fuel costs if running a large station. My proposal is to use the above as base numbers, but to also add role bonuses to the labs appropriate to their specialty and tie them to an existing skill such as "Research." Alternatively, you could add a few skills such as "Research ME," Research TE," and "Research Copying." For example:
Research Labs role bonus: 5% bonus per level Research ME, 5% bonus per level Research TE
Design Labs role bonus: 5% bonus per level Research Copying, 5% bonus per level Research, 20% bonus to BPC runs per level Research Copying.
Hyasoda Labs role bonus: 10% bonus per level Research ME, 10% bonus per level Research TE
In this way each lab remains distinctive while offering meaningful incentive to utilize a POS as opposed to an NPC station. It also partially addresses the issue of low BPC run caps while allowing inventors to partially close the competitive gap with T2 BPO holders while taking nothing away from T2 BPO holders. Ideally, inventors should have a chance through skill and equipment to research a "perfect" BPC just as a T2 BPO holder may research the BPO to "perfect." Also, by adding further bonuses to research times, it addresses some of the ridiculously long research cycles which can be expected under the new system as unveiled. This benefits smaller and/or newer researchers and industrialists by allowing for less time needed before having a chance to become competitive. The main issue I see is in determining how to reconcile these ideas with player outposts.
Those skills already exist Science Research can't remember the third
Metallurgy
And yes, having those skills merged into the effective outcome of lab boni would indeed be a nice move (given it is at all possible with the current state of the POS code).
|
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 22:17:00 -
[336] - Quote
*EDIT - Botched post, see below. |
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 22:18:00 -
[337] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The third is Metallurgy Also, Temenus Alexander has clearly never done invention. As I explained here time is everything in invention, and a 40% bonus to copy time and a 50% bonus to invention time makes you WAY more isk
I wasn't as clear as I might have been with the examples, but those are precisely what I'm referring to (plus and additional boost to runs) on the Design Lab. To be nore clear:
Research labs: Base time multiplier for Research ME: 0.7 (was 0.75). + a role bonus of 5% per level of appropriate skill (whether new or existing) Base time multiplier for Research TE: 0.7 (was 0.75). + a role bonus of 5% per level of appropriate skill (whether new or existing)
Design labs: Base time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.65). + a role bonus of 5% per level of appropriate skill (whether new or existing) [b]Base[/b] time multiplier for invention: 0.5 (was 0.5). + a role bonus of 5% per level of appropriate skill (whether new or existing) + 20% to BPC copy run cap per level of appropriate skill (whether new or existing)
Hyasyoda labs: Base time multiplier for Research ME: 0.65 (was 0.75). + a role bonus of 5% per level of appropriate skill (whether new or existing) Base time multiplier for Research TE: 0.65 (was 0.75). + a role bonus of 5% per level of appropriate skill (whether new or existing)
So, yes, what I posted has everything to do with time, and my example for the Design Labs specifically (since that is the lab designated at present by the devs to handle your specific areas of concern) with the appropriate max skills would net a total bonus to Copy Speed of 65% (as opposed to your threshold of 40%) and a total bonus to Invention speed of 150% (as opposed to your threshold of 50%). And give a slight boost to copy run caps at the same time. So, yes, I think I addressed precisely the areas of concern which you share. |
Sigras
Conglomo
763
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 23:23:00 -
[338] - Quote
I only have concerns about the research labs; Im saying that the current bonuses the labs offer to speed are more than enough incentive for inventors to use lots and no further bonus is necessary. |
Vesan Terakol
Sad Face Enterprises
68
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 17:59:00 -
[339] - Quote
OK, i'm gonna go a bit crazy here, but with the splitting of invention and research into 2 labs we get yet one more stack of corporate hangars to move stuff between.
And since you managed to adjust so many thing related to POSes, i'm assuming you managed to break the code that was stopping you from improving them for so long.
So, how about we get all the hangars of the individual arrays merged (as we have only one corporate hangar in stations), witch each additional array contributing its hangar volume to the total?
That would reduce A TON of unneeded dragging of materials and checking where you left those the last time.
Please! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4259327 - more suff in the Zero.Zero collection |
Katherine Raven
ALTA Industries Intergalactic Conservation Movement
147
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 20:38:00 -
[340] - Quote
Vesan Terakol wrote:OK, i'm gonna go a bit crazy here, but with the splitting of invention and research into 2 labs we get yet one more stack of corporate hangars to move stuff between.
And since you managed to adjust so many thing related to POSes, i'm assuming you managed to break the code that was stopping you from improving them for so long.
So, how about we get all the hangars of the individual arrays merged (as we have only one corporate hangar in stations), witch each additional array contributing its hangar volume to the total?
That would reduce A TON of unneeded dragging of materials and checking where you left those the last time.
Please!
P.S.: Now that i think of it, splitting the one lab into 2 requires some reevaluation of its fitting requirements. It would be nice if we could still do our research AND invention without overloading the POS's fitting (unless that is part of the design).
This. This would be fantastic. If it's feasible. |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
609
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 06:03:00 -
[341] - Quote
So this is getting moved to Crius as well right?
|
Zol Interbottom
Theft and Taxes
313
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 07:44:00 -
[342] - Quote
I would like the ability to takeover offline starbases and add them to my own collection. Rather than go PEWPEWPEW until they fall down. "If you're quitting for the 3rd time you clearly ain't quitting" - Chribba |
Anthar Thebess
408
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 10:39:00 -
[343] - Quote
Can the poses have powergrid buff so people can mount much more guns? Current state of EVE Online : Supers/Capitals Swarms.
Why not allow us to make Super/Capital Killer poses ?
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3477
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 10:55:00 -
[344] - Quote
Rowells wrote:So this is getting moved to Crius as well right?
Indeed. |
|
Vexo Colari
Dark Sanctum
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 06:54:00 -
[345] - 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 over haul.
These ideas that were in the commonly proposed ideas area should definitely 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 |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3272
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:51:00 -
[346] - Quote
Vexo Colari wrote: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 over haul. These ideas that were in the commonly proposed ideas area should definitely looked at. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6342&find=unreadThey 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
It was mentioned during CCP presents. Structures are getting a rework. But we're probably going to get a corporation management refresh first, because it's appalling. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Maxdig
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:57:00 -
[347] - Quote
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... |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3520
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 09:43:00 -
[348] - 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. |
|
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
843
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:41:00 -
[349] - Quote
What does the Material Efficiency skill do now? |
zahter
Shayol Ghul Forge
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 12:48:00 -
[350] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
This is really great news.
What type of changes are you planning for starbase industry. I think it is one of the biggest reasons why the industry changes are postponed |
|
Trader13
NOT A FRONT
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:48:00 -
[351] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Very excited to hear about how offline tower removal will work.
Just off the top of my head I imagine a system where you fly to an offline tower and play the hacking mini game on it. If you fail maybe the tower has some kinda automated AOE defense. If you succeed the tower begins a 48 hour (or something) un-anchoring timer, also sending a mail notification to the owners. During that timer the owner can come online/offline it or something to cancel the un-anchoring (Semi used towers can be easily kept, long abandoned towers can be stolen), once timer runs out it is floating in space. Hell add a 50% chance to AOE explode? Tower sink, and also choice between sitting right on the tower ready to scoop, holding back and warping in after you see etc. Just throwing out random ideas as they come to me :) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
639
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:07:00 -
[352] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:What does the Material Efficiency skill do now? reduce material requirements up to 10% with 2% per level. |
Katherine Raven
ALTA Industries Intergalactic Conservation Movement
147
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:39:00 -
[353] - Quote
Trader13 wrote:
Very excited to hear about how offline tower removal will work.
Just off the top of my head I imagine a system where you fly to an offline tower and play the hacking mini game on it. If you fail maybe the tower has some kinda automated AOE defense. If you succeed the tower begins a 48 hour (or something) un-anchoring timer, also sending a mail notification to the owners. During that timer the owner can come online/offline it or something to cancel the un-anchoring (Semi used towers can be easily kept, long abandoned towers can be stolen), once timer runs out it is floating in space. Hell add a 50% chance to AOE explode? Tower sink, and also choice between sitting right on the tower ready to scoop, holding back and warping in after you see etc. Just throwing out random ideas as they come to me :)
I like the ideas presented there. There was a really cool idea from the industry panel at Fanfest where offline towers in high sec continue to burn starbase charters. At fanfest it was suggested that the tower becomes free to shoot by anyone. I think combining that idea with yours would be pretty sweet, when the tower runs out of charters, it become vulnerable to hacking. With that model, you wouldn't need the 48 hour unanchor timer, though having it wouldn't really be a bad thing. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
351
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:40:00 -
[354] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
What was the reason behind this added complexity? |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
351
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:05:00 -
[355] - 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.
When working on this bonus idea.. can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make sure that we don't HAVE to separate our production into several labs/arrays to take advantage of them? One of the best effects of getting rid of slots was the fact that producers no longer need to divide up materials into dozens of labs/arrays anymore. This was the worst time consuming and mundane activity that needed to be done to build out of a POS.
In other words, if we get a bonus from anchoring arrays A, B and C, can we still build only in A (with bonuses) instead of having to break our production down and separate materials into A, B and C.
Thank you. |
ExookiZ
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
237
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:22:00 -
[356] - Quote
is the XL sma being fixed for kronos? or was that pushed back too The Wormhole Kid |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3310
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 16:36:00 -
[357] - Quote
Rowells wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:What does the Material Efficiency skill do now? reduce material requirements up to 10% with 2% per level.
Citation needed.
Last I saw, it was going to be a cap on the reduction of build costs with multiple runs. (that's in the devblog) with a rename. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
598
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 17:36:00 -
[358] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Since wh is littered with offline towers, and oflines pos used to secure moons this can be a new occupation, depending on what happens to contents like hangars and pos. Scoop or destroy
Cant wait! Nice interaction with ccp |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 18:00:00 -
[359] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Rowells wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:What does the Material Efficiency skill do now? reduce material requirements up to 10% with 2% per level. Citation needed. Last I saw, it was going to be a cap on the reduction of build costs with multiple runs. (that's in the devblog) with a rename.
On the other hand a +2ME/skilllevel would be nice. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
421
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 18:10:00 -
[360] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:In other words, if we get a bonus from anchoring arrays A, B and C, can we still build only in A (with bonuses) instead of having to break our production down and separate materials into A, B and C.
Thank you. Hoping and dreaming of a future when you right-click the POS to open the storage bays, dump in your materials, begin researching or manufacturing, and the research/manufacturing efficiency is determined by number and types of modules you have installed (like what happens with modules on ships now) while requiring zero direct interaction with those modules. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3315
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 18:15:00 -
[361] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Rowells wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:What does the Material Efficiency skill do now? reduce material requirements up to 10% with 2% per level. Citation needed. Last I saw, it was going to be a cap on the reduction of build costs with multiple runs. (that's in the devblog) with a rename. On the other hand a +2ME/skilllevel would be nice.
It also leads to '5 or GTFO'
Which is less than ideal.
A cap on reduction on the build cost is good for squeezing out the last drop of profit, but not crippling at lower levels. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
303
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 03:53:00 -
[362] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Excellent! Here are some ideas. Corbexx and I have talked a good bit about the below linked thread as well.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=333764&find=unread
Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
496
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 15:59:00 -
[363] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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.
How about once they are offlined/run out of fuel they lose shields, followed by taking armour then hull damage gradually from micrometeor strikes etc. Just think of the queues of people waiting for the best point to take down the tower :) |
Komi Toran
Perkone Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 17:17:00 -
[364] - Quote
My first thought on this was "Hacking!" So seconding/thirding/fourthing/whatever your linked proposal. |
Felicity Love
It Was the Year 3030
1829
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 01:44:00 -
[365] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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.
How about once they are offlined/run out of fuel they lose shields, followed by taking armour then hull damage gradually from micrometeor strikes etc. Just think of the queues of people waiting for the best point to take down the tower :)
Or they could just go "SPLAT" after 30 days of no fuel...
Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
"HTFU ! " -á--- -áKatee Sackhoff, aka "The F-Bomb Queen of EVE" ! !-á
|
Sigras
Conglomo
774
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 06:13:00 -
[366] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:My first thought on this was "Hacking!" So seconding/thirding/fourthing/whatever your linked proposal. We have a tower removal mechanic... its called war deccing. |
Qmamoto Kansuke
Killing with pink power
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 06:52:00 -
[367] - Quote
I don't see how paying 600m a month for a pos would be justified unless a taxes in npc stations are bigger than the montly fuel fee. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
690
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 07:53:00 -
[368] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Rowells wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:What does the Material Efficiency skill do now? reduce material requirements up to 10% with 2% per level. Citation needed. Last I saw, it was going to be a cap on the reduction of build costs with multiple runs. (that's in the devblog) with a rename. Your right. I was reading this:
Quote:Blueprint research will then be moved to a ten-step system. Each step of ME research will reduce material requirements on that blueprint by 1%, And skimmed over this:
Quote:The Material Efficiency skill will be repurposed, stay tuned for more information on that in a future blog. and still got the numbers wrong |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3333
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 11:21:00 -
[369] - Quote
Qmamoto Kansuke wrote:I don't see how paying 600m a month for a pos would be justified unless a taxes in npc stations are bigger than the montly fuel fee.
You mean other than the time multipliers?
And the -2% to material requirements in the assembly arrays?
And that you can base out of a system with no manufacturing slots, so the percentage of build hours is tiny? Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3972
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 13:07:00 -
[370] - Quote
Is a 2% reduction in the material requirements of a job worth a MFG in a POS?
A Small POS uses 10 fuel blocks an hour, which is about 150k isk. A large POS uses 4x as much.
To recover the POS fuel operating expenses of that small pos, your 2% reduction would need to cover that amount.
150k / 0.02 = 7.5m isk per hour.
Lets examine Null L. One production run consumers 1m isk in materials and takes 35 hrs to complete.
Our Ammo Assembly Array has a 25% reduction in the production time, so 35hrs is reduced. I'm going to assume the changes to invented BPC's have better product rates, and reduce this time all the way down to 20 hrs (instead of 26). To balance our POS fuel costs, we need to run 7.5m isk per hour. 20 hrs * 7.5m / hr = 150m isk. At 1m isk per run, we'd need to have 150m / 1 m per run, 150 jobs running concurrently to balance the operational cost of the POS. With 10 jobs / character, that's 15 fulltime producers to support a small POS, 30 fulltime producers to support a medium POS, and 60 fulltime producers to support a Large POS. This is unreasonable.
Lets examine a Light Neutron Blaster II. It costs about 400k in materials to produce on blaster, and takes about 5.2 hours to produce. Our assembly Array reduces this time by 25%, so it now takes 4 hrs to produce. 4 * 7.5m per hour gives us 30m. 30m / 0.4 per run = 75 runs. It would take 75 jobs running concurrently to balance the operational costs of the small pos. That's 7.5 characters for a small POS, or 30 fulltime producers to support a large POS. This is unreasonable.
Let's examine a Neutron Blaster Cannon II. It costs 3.2 m in materials to produce one Blaster, and takes ~6 hrs to produce. Our Assembly Array reduces this time by 25%, so it now takes 4.5 hrs to produce. 4.5 hrs * 7.5m per hour gives us 33+m. 33m / 3.2m per run gives us ~10 jobs running concurrently to balance the operational costs of the small POS. Or 1 Character for a small, 2 for a medium, 4 for a large. This seems very reasonable.
Let's examine a Caracal. It costs 10m isk in build materials at perfect ME, and takes 2.7 hrs. In the Assembly array, this will be reduced to 2 hrs. 2.5 hrs * 7.5m isk is 15m isk. The 2% Material savings easily compensate fuel costs, especially for larger ships.
I have two points of contention to bring up given these numbers: 1.) The benefits of using a POS are really uneven. In some cases, there is clearly an economic benefit to using a POS. However, in other cases your standard Indy corp is unlikely to recoup the operational costs of a POS. This is because the production times of modules are not related to the Material Costs in producing those modules. I hope the production times of modules are rebalanced to make Ammo and all classes of modules worthwhile to produce in a POS too.
2.) If you consider it like this: 720 production hours in a 30 day month. You need to churn through 720 hrs * 7.5 m / hr =5.4b isk in materials every month to support a small POS, or 21.6 b per month to support a large POS. Those assets are in space and at risk. You cannot cancel jobs in the middle of a run, so any self-supporting large POS is going to have on average 700m in unmitigated assets in use at a POS anytime they are wardecced (not including BPOs). While I love the motivation it gives to defend your POS, I feel the benefits of using a POS should be increased to balance these risks. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3972
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 14:13:00 -
[371] - Quote
One more thing:
What are the chances of adding a reduction in the installation fee for Research Jobs? Currently, it is the lack of available lines that drive players to use Labs for Copying and ME, and from there its beneficial to do invention and PE at the POS too. Given the limitations on station lines, POS Research doesn't have competition with Station Research for most serious producers. However, with the removal of queues, this limitation is eliminated, and it becomes a competition based on cost effectiveness.
A neutron Blaster bpc takes 5 hrs to create, and another 2.5 hrs to invent at a Station. This is 7.5 hrs. In our POS, that bpc takes 3 hrs to create and 1.25 hrs to invent, for a total of 4.25 hrs.
The currently have the same run cost. So the per hour cost at the station is Run cost / 7.5.
The cost savings from running the job at the POS would be the time difference (3.25 hrs) * Hourly Station cost (Run Cost / 7.5) == 43% of the run cost.
For it to be economical to run this at the POS, the cost savings must exceed the POS's operational costs. (4.25 hrs ) * (150k isk Fuel / hr for a small POS ) / (Number of jobs). == 630k isk / Number of simultaneous jobs.
The run cost though is a very small number. From the dev blog, it will be the base value of a Neutron Blaster I (2m) * ~5% = 100k isk. As such, a Nuetron Blaster II BPC is cost effective to make at a small POS when you have 2 People working it. However, a light neutron blaster II BPC, with a much lower base value (40k) would not be unless you had 50 people working the POS.
This issue, again, is that all modules take the same time to copy and invent, regardless of their value.
Some of this could be remedied by reducing the copy and invention times of modules based on size. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
513
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 15:35:00 -
[372] - Quote
Felicity Love wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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.
How about once they are offlined/run out of fuel they lose shields, followed by taking armour then hull damage gradually from micrometeor strikes etc. Just think of the queues of people waiting for the best point to take down the tower :) Or they could just go "SPLAT" after 30 days of no fuel... Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
Clearly they are having to 'invent' some mechanism to get rid of them. Simple degradation is the most realistic and straightforward. How long do you think the ISS would last in orbit without regular shifts to avoid debris?
|
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 15:45:00 -
[373] - Quote
The time reduction alone means you make 30% more modules in the same timeframe. A small POS cost 150k/hr (your numbers), and you have 10 manufacturing slots/character.
This means that you need to make 50k/hr/line in station to make money using a small POS with 1 character. 50k/line = 500k/charactert, 500k*1.3(faster manufacturing) = 650k or 150k more than station manufacturing.
These numbers means that a profitt of 360m/month from station manufacturing is the point where TIME saving alone pay for a small POS, any cost reduction will just make it better. Lets be honest, if your not making more that this from manufacturing you are not realy an industrialist and have NO reason to be using a POS... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3973
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 16:50:00 -
[374] - Quote
Joraa Starkmanir wrote:The time reduction alone means you make 30% more modules in the same timeframe. A small POS cost 150k/hr (your numbers), and you have 10 manufacturing slots/character. This means that you need to make 50k/hr/line in station to make money using a small POS with 1 character. 50k/line = 500k/charactert, 500k*1.3(faster manufacturing) = 650k or 150k more than station manufacturing. These numbers means that a profitt of 360m/month from station manufacturing is the point where TIME saving alone pay for a small POS, any cost reduction will just make it better. Lets be honest, if your not making more that this from manufacturing you are not realy an industrialist and have NO reason to be using a POS...
That's a very elegant way to approach this, and comes from a very different angle.
I currently use my POS for copy and invention, and currently distribute the POS fuel price to each line to calculate how much making a BPC costs. I don't currently manufacture in the POS due to inconveniences and ignorance. I was using a similar approach to determine the base cost for producing a module, and justifying utilizing a POS based on the cost savings it provides in terms of lower production time and lower material requirements. Thank you for pointing out that time reduction doesn't just alter the production costs of an item, but also directly increases revenues too. It appears that the revenue increases alone can exceed POS operational costs.
|
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:00:00 -
[375] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: In layman's terms, because I'm not a business man. If, in a station, I could produce 50 modules per hour at 10k each, I assumed a POS must allow me to produce 65 modules per hour at a 10k production cost to cover the 150k in Fuel costs. (i.e. 50 * 10k + 150k = 65 * 10k )
However, this neglects that I sell those modules at 30k isk each. The increase to production rate improves the net profits I'm earning. So, at the 30k price point, I need only produce 55 modules per hour to cover the 150k in Fuel costs. (i.e. 50 * 30k + 150k = 55 * 30k )
As long as those numbers are profit margins and not sell prices, and its assumed to be manufactured in 1 hr (the time you calculate fuel for) |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
152
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 18:15:00 -
[376] - Quote
Dear All,
I would like to remind everyone that are busy playing sand castles in this thread about the big picture here (including the Devs still willing to read this): POS game play sucks. It has always sucked. I cannot believe anyone believes this is a fun game mechanic...stop legitimizing it with 'fixes' and start with a process of scrapping the entire thing. Do this in the background, put a team on it...keep it top secret (of course) but for god's sake, start scrapping the system. The POS system is like the Kevin Bacon of interconnected problems with Eve's design: Almost all problems in Eve are, at most, 6 parts removed from a POS structure.
I understand industrialists like to play the cogs of how the game works; that is enjoyment, and I fully embrace and respect non PVP professions in this game. However, the tool set of POS mechanics is a real slap in the face to all players, especially industrialists, and has been since they were introduced.
Respectfully,
-K Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
514
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 18:25:00 -
[377] - Quote
Karash Amerius wrote:Dear All,
I fully embrace and respect non PVP professions in this game -K
All professions are PvP one way or another |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3347
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 18:40:00 -
[378] - Quote
Karash Amerius wrote:Dear All,
I would like to remind everyone that are busy playing sand castles in this thread about the big picture here (including the Devs still willing to read this): POS game play sucks. It has always sucked. I cannot believe anyone believes this is a fun game mechanic...stop legitimizing it with 'fixes' and start with a process of scrapping the entire thing. Do this in the background, put a team on it...keep it top secret (of course) but for god's sake, start scrapping the system. The POS system is like the Kevin Bacon of interconnected problems with Eve's design: Almost all problems in Eve are, at most, 6 parts removed from a POS structure.
I understand industrialists like to play the cogs of how the game works; that is enjoyment, and I fully embrace and respect non PVP professions in this game. However, the tool set of POS mechanics is a real slap in the face to all players, especially industrialists, and has been since they were introduced.
Respectfully,
-K
As has been said repeatedly, POS code is on the roadmap. It's not being abandoned. There are just some requirements to get out the way first. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
152
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 20:53:00 -
[379] - Quote
Steve,
While I read the same forums as you do, I am obviously not privy to any sort of CSM info. The bottom line is, even with proposed changes such as modular starbases, has there really been players in Eve that have set up 20 towers and thought "Wow, this is so much fun".
No.
POSes exist because they HAVE to exist...not because they provide a fun gameplay mechanic; fairly tragic for such a promising enterprise we find ourselves in. Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 21:45:00 -
[380] - Quote
Karash Amerius wrote:Steve,
While I read the same forums as you do, I am obviously not privy to any sort of CSM info. The bottom line is, even with proposed changes such as modular starbases, has there really been players in Eve that have set up 20 towers and thought "Wow, this is so much fun".
No.
POSes exist because they HAVE to exist...not because they provide a fun gameplay mechanic; fairly tragic for such a promising enterprise we find ourselves in.
I dont think it was ever intended for players to use 20 POSes each, thats why its a CORP asset. If we ignore the hell that is currently corp roles it should be possible to have multiple POSes managed by several people, 1-2POS per manager in same system or 1 jump apart is not hard to maintain. |
|
Qmamoto Kansuke
Killing with pink power
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 06:58:00 -
[381] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Qmamoto Kansuke wrote:I don't see how paying 600m a month for a pos would be justified unless a taxes in npc stations are bigger than the montly fuel fee. You mean other than the time multipliers? And the -2% to material requirements in the assembly arrays? And that you can base out of a system with no manufacturing slots, so the percentage of build hours is tiny?
That system without stations in it is going to be pretty far away from major trade hub which is a no go for any industrialist with brain.Time=money.If you have to 20 freighter jump all day to get your stuff going.Its not worth it to search such system mainly because even system with stations are not so widely used few jumps from main trade hubs. |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 07:51:00 -
[382] - Quote
Qmamoto Kansuke wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Qmamoto Kansuke wrote:I don't see how paying 600m a month for a pos would be justified unless a taxes in npc stations are bigger than the montly fuel fee. You mean other than the time multipliers? And the -2% to material requirements in the assembly arrays? And that you can base out of a system with no manufacturing slots, so the percentage of build hours is tiny? That system without stations in it is going to be pretty far away from major trade hub which is a no go for any industrialist with brain.Time=money.If you have to 20 freighter jump all day to get your stuff going.Its not worth it to search such system mainly because even system with stations are not so widely used few jumps from main trade hubs.
4 jumps from JIta includes: Kylmabe(3), Ahtulaima(3), Mahtista(4), Ambeke(4), Piekura(4) Thats 5 systems with 4 or less jumps to Jita, thats not far away from a major trade hub. You basicly have to manufacture IN the trade hub to get closer... |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
62
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 13:07:00 -
[383] - Quote
Joraa Starkmanir wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:Steve,
While I read the same forums as you do, I am obviously not privy to any sort of CSM info. The bottom line is, even with proposed changes such as modular starbases, has there really been players in Eve that have set up 20 towers and thought "Wow, this is so much fun".
No.
POSes exist because they HAVE to exist...not because they provide a fun gameplay mechanic; fairly tragic for such a promising enterprise we find ourselves in. I dont think it was ever intended for players to use 20 POSes each, thats why its a CORP asset. If we ignore the hell that is currently corp roles it should be possible to have multiple POSes managed by several people, 1-2POS per manager in same system or 1 jump apart is not hard to maintain.
That is part of the problem, they HAD to be a corp asset from back when POS's were Point of Soverienty prior to Dominion or Apocypha (Can't remember) like YEARS ago and they have languished and been promised to be updated every year and every year it is like us playing Charlie Brown and kicking the football and CCP takes it away from us and we land flat on our backs again. All the while CCP is laughing |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
682
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 14:22:00 -
[384] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: As has been said repeatedly, POS code is on the roadmap. It's not being abandoned. There are just some requirements to get out the way first.
Karash Amerius wrote:Steve,
While I read the same forums as you do, I am obviously not privy to any sort of CSM info.
The general roadmap was shown as part of the Fanfest keynote stuff, it's not restricted to the CSM. It was something like this:
Industry stuff > Corps & Alliance mechanics > Starbases and outposts > Sovereignty & warfare > Stargate construction & control
Industry is will be pretty much done during the summer, so the next major project should be Corps & Alliances. Once that has been handled (and the horrific roles system overhauled) CCP will be in a good place to tackle starbases from scratch, in the same way they just did Industry. Personally I'd expect to see some results of this starbase overhaul between Q2 and Q4 2015.
It would be nice if we could get some tweaks in the meantime though, such as re-balancing weapons to have stats from later than 2004. |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
62
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 16:05:00 -
[385] - Quote
Just a question for the devs and if I don't get a response that is not a big deal but how modular could you make POS guns? Could you say give these items a High slot and 2 low slots and able to fit a gun of their required size.
For example I was thinking along the lines of allowing these to be more as a platform. So you have a Small Medium and Large Turret Platform and a small medium and large Missile Platform. Then give each of these a High Medium and Low. This would make POS's more unique and also allow for fitting much different types or guns on a POS as well as fitting in with the new gun Meta terricide that will be happening soonish.
Just a thought and would be cool if this is something that could be done. |
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 19:07:00 -
[386] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Why the hell not? I thought you were working for us? Do as your told. Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Erasmus Phoenix
Balls to the Walls No Response
100
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 16:52:00 -
[387] - Quote
Is the anchoring IV for starbase defense management thing still happening? Can't find it in the patch notes. |
Bael Gar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 18:39:00 -
[388] - Quote
If we are no longer allowed to research BPO from station hangar, how we are supposed to use ALLIANCE laboratories ??
Before KRONOS we could use any laboratory belongs to any corporation in alliance to start research job, while BPO was in corporate hangar at station. But after KRONOS we cannot start job from station and cannot put BPO into other corporation laboratory. It seems CCP removed very useful functionality from the game.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
774
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 22:05:00 -
[389] - Quote
Seith Kali wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. Why the hell not? I thought you were working for us? Do as your told. The devs do not work for you or the advancement of your entitlement issues; they work for CCP and that means they reserve the right to ignore all ideas they believe are stupid. |
Gliese Casserres
Confused Bunnies Inc CAStabouts
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 12:08:00 -
[390] - Quote
Bael Gar wrote:If we are no longer allowed to research BPO from station hangar, how we are supposed to use ALLIANCE laboratories ??
Before KRONOS we could use any laboratory belongs to any corporation in alliance to start research job, while BPO was in corporate hangar at station. But after KRONOS we cannot start job from station and cannot put BPO into other corporation laboratory. It seems CCP removed very useful functionality from the game.
Indeed this feature has been the only thing allowing me to pursue industry gameplay in my one man corp. Can't afford to purchase, babysit, nor lose my own POS isk and time -wise, so I bought a lab for alliance pos and pay my share of fuel. All works well and everyone is happy.
Now if said functionality is removed I face 3 options: 1) dismantle the whole corp and join a bigger one 2) put up my own pos and wait for player generated content 3) say **** it to industry and put characters to orbit the beacon for candy.
Removing this functionality drives the sandbox even more to the direction of big corporations, generates more opportunities for infiltrators. Or if small corps choose to persist, expose themselves more to the wardec content and inevitable swarms of marauders tearing down your pos for lols when you chose to go out during weekend rather than dismantling your pos just in case.
TL;DR
Dev's are pissing to my corner of the sandbox and I don't like it. I'm too poor for own pos, and too non-committed to defend one against merc marauder swarm. Allow POS BPO research from stations in the future. |
|
suid0
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
131
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 13:13:00 -
[391] - Quote
Gliese Casserres wrote:Bael Gar wrote:If we are no longer allowed to research BPO from station hangar, how we are supposed to use ALLIANCE laboratories ??
Before KRONOS we could use any laboratory belongs to any corporation in alliance to start research job, while BPO was in corporate hangar at station. But after KRONOS we cannot start job from station and cannot put BPO into other corporation laboratory. It seems CCP removed very useful functionality from the game.
Indeed this feature has been the only thing allowing me to pursue industry gameplay in my one man corp. Can't afford to purchase, babysit, nor lose my own POS isk and time -wise, so I bought a lab for alliance pos and pay my share of fuel. All works well and everyone is happy. Now if said functionality is removed I face 3 options: 1) dismantle the whole corp and join a bigger one 2) put up my own pos and wait for player generated content 3) say **** it to industry and put characters to orbit the beacon for candy. Removing this functionality drives the sandbox even more to the direction of big corporations, generates more opportunities for infiltrators. Or if small corps choose to persist, expose themselves more to the wardec content and inevitable swarms of marauders tearing down your pos for lols when you chose to go out during weekend rather than dismantling your pos just in case. TL;DR Dev's are pissing to my corner of the sandbox and I don't like it. I'm too poor for own pos, and too non-committed to defend one against merc marauder swarm. Allow POS BPO research from stations in the future.
Given anchoring mechanics are changing to remove the standings requirements, also if war dec'd you have 24 hrs to just pull your equipment down if you don't want to defend it with 0 loss there shouldn't really be the need to use an alliance pos.
If you don't want to put the BPO in a tower, just make use of station slots instead? the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones -á--áCommander Ted |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3547
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 13:21:00 -
[392] - 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. |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1195
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 16:59:00 -
[393] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Why is that? I mean okay its POSes and POSes can be used for industry, but POS defense happen in a lot of situations, and I bet that in most cases its not to defend an industry POS.
I could transport blueprints in my dramiel, its an industry activity. Does this mean that we would need to delay pirate faction rebalance to crius aswell?
Being able to POS gun with anchoring IV is in my opinion a change that does not need to wait six more weeks before being implemented. Its not like ship balancing or something, six more weeks of discussing with the community won't change much :D You can't end up having the skill requiring level 4.25, it would either be 5 or 4. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. Beware the french guy!
|
Gliese Casserres
Confused Bunnies Inc CAStabouts
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 17:03:00 -
[394] - Quote
suid0 wrote:Gliese Casserres wrote:Bael Gar wrote:If we are no longer allowed to research BPO from station hangar, how we are supposed to use ALLIANCE laboratories ??
Before KRONOS we could use any laboratory belongs to any corporation in alliance to start research job, while BPO was in corporate hangar at station. But after KRONOS we cannot start job from station and cannot put BPO into other corporation laboratory. It seems CCP removed very useful functionality from the game.
Indeed this feature has been the only thing allowing me to pursue industry gameplay in my one man corp. Can't afford to purchase, babysit, nor lose my own POS isk and time -wise, so I bought a lab for alliance pos and pay my share of fuel. All works well and everyone is happy. Now if said functionality is removed I face 3 options: 1) dismantle the whole corp and join a bigger one 2) put up my own pos and wait for player generated content 3) say **** it to industry and put characters to orbit the beacon for candy. Removing this functionality drives the sandbox even more to the direction of big corporations, generates more opportunities for infiltrators. Or if small corps choose to persist, expose themselves more to the wardec content and inevitable swarms of marauders tearing down your pos for lols when you chose to go out during weekend rather than dismantling your pos just in case. TL;DR Dev's are pissing to my corner of the sandbox and I don't like it. I'm too poor for own pos, and too non-committed to defend one against merc marauder swarm. Allow POS BPO research from stations in the future. Given anchoring mechanics are changing to remove the standings requirements, also if war dec'd you have 24 hrs to just pull your equipment down if you don't want to defend it with 0 loss there shouldn't really be the need to use an alliance pos. If you don't want to put the BPO in a tower, just make use of station slots instead? I'd still rather pay someone else to carry the burden which a POS is. (Yes, I want to reap the benefits of a POS without owning and maintainaing it.) And, as is widely known, station slots are even more pain in the backside than anything. Current system is much more convenient and I can actually have few days off at a moments notice if I so please.
|
Veinnail
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
86
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 17:12:00 -
[395] - Quote
I am a bit curious how this works into the lore. In the eve universe we can utilize technology like cloning and jump cloning, but we cannot refer a database remotely in order to access schematics that are available to our corporation?
I still feel like remote usage of information fits into the entire concept that Eve's galaxy plays into.
|
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 21:20:00 -
[396] - Quote
Veinnail wrote:I am a bit curious how this works into the lore. In the eve universe we can utilize technology like cloning and jump cloning, but we cannot refer a database remotely in order to access schematics that are available to our corporation?
I still feel like remote usage of information fits into the entire concept that Eve's galaxy plays into.
Easy lore reason: Giving workforce access to your hangars remotely are 99% likely to result in theft of everythign nto nailed down, while with local access it can be controlled who takes what and where. Due to the high number of thefts, Concord have passed universal laws against giving workforces remote access to anything.
Took like 10sec to make up this BS, lore is just a small part tho mostly its gameplay reasons. Risk-reward is totaly screwed when you can have your BPO's safe in station and still get the benefits of a POS. |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
474
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 23:00:00 -
[397] - Quote
Joraa Starkmanir wrote:Veinnail wrote:I am a bit curious how this works into the lore. In the eve universe we can utilize technology like cloning and jump cloning, but we cannot refer a database remotely in order to access schematics that are available to our corporation?
I still feel like remote usage of information fits into the entire concept that Eve's galaxy plays into.
Easy lore reason: Giving workforce access to your hangars remotely are 99% likely to result in theft of everythign nto nailed down, while with local access it can be controlled who takes what and where. Due to the high number of thefts, Concord have passed universal laws against giving workforces remote access to anything. Took like 10sec to make up this BS, lore is just a small part tho mostly its gameplay reasons. Risk-reward is totaly screwed when you can have your BPO's safe in station and still get the benefits of a POS.
Except that contracts and PI as well as buy orders and even other industry job actions can be done remotely. There is nothing that makes it, even in your 10sec lore bs, consistant with the rest of the game. 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.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3378
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 00:10:00 -
[398] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:Joraa Starkmanir wrote:Veinnail wrote:I am a bit curious how this works into the lore. In the eve universe we can utilize technology like cloning and jump cloning, but we cannot refer a database remotely in order to access schematics that are available to our corporation?
I still feel like remote usage of information fits into the entire concept that Eve's galaxy plays into.
Easy lore reason: Giving workforce access to your hangars remotely are 99% likely to result in theft of everythign nto nailed down, while with local access it can be controlled who takes what and where. Due to the high number of thefts, Concord have passed universal laws against giving workforces remote access to anything. Took like 10sec to make up this BS, lore is just a small part tho mostly its gameplay reasons. Risk-reward is totaly screwed when you can have your BPO's safe in station and still get the benefits of a POS. Except that contracts and PI as well as buy orders and even other industry job actions can be done remotely. There is nothing that makes it, even in your 10sec lore bs, consistant with the rest of the game.
You want more plausible BS?
The blueprints aren't schematics. They're the control codes for the nanite assemblers that all our stuff is made using, embedded in cartridges. And DRM is alive and well.
That's why you can only make limited copies, and can't copy those. And why invention has a failure rate (you're breaking adaptive DRM, and when you fail, the copy burns itself out) Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 09:09:00 -
[399] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Except that contracts and PI as well as buy orders and even other industry job actions can be done remotely. There is nothing that makes it, even in your 10sec lore bs, consistant with the rest of the game.
Contracts are agreements between 2 capsuleers, not the same as giving some low payed thief access to your corp hangar (most corps are very strict about who get that kind of access) PI, you give orders to workers on a planet to do stuff, they have no way to get of that planet with your stuff. Buy orders are like online shopping, and its limited to stations and can be controlled. Other industry, im sure your thinking about those jobs where you have materials+blueprint already stored in the same place as your trying to make something? Would you let random PLAYERS move your BPO whenever you use a POS for manufacture or research?
The changes are plausible to explain with lore, but the main reason for the changes are GAMEPLAY! Again, someone that have actualy read the eve lore and care alot about it may find other reasons than what i make up :P |
Charuati Dranor
Dark-Blades Galactic Skyfleet Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 10:20:00 -
[400] - Quote
It is conceivable that the cargo capacity change in the corporate hangar is preferred in order to compensate for the already active change in the capitals packing size? It deprives the corporate hangar currently about 28.5% of its cargo capacity when a capital ship was stored. |
|
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
170
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 17:41:00 -
[401] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:You want more plausible BS?
The blueprints aren't schematics. They're the control codes for the nanite assemblers that all our stuff is made using, embedded in cartridges. And DRM is alive and well.
That's why you can only make limited copies, and can't copy those. And why invention has a failure rate (you're breaking adaptive DRM, and when you fail, the copy burns itself out)
That sir, is some nicely written logic for space magic. Well done.
Being serious. Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
Tia Hibra
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 23:13:00 -
[402] - Quote
Please, for the love of god, increase the size of the biochemical silos. These things are crazy small for how large fullertites can be, needing to be refilled multiple times per day (which makes a very boring and tedious task, much more so |
Tia Hibra
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 23:15:00 -
[403] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
This is great news!!!!! |
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
542
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 00:10:00 -
[404] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: I can talk with Fozzie regarding CPU requirements on missile batteries when he's around.
What was the result of this talk, then? |
Vivi Udan
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
35
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 14:04:00 -
[405] - Quote
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 for 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.
I remembered to check Tranquility yesterday to see if this change was in the Kronos release...It wasn't. I assume the "5" will be changed to a "4" in the Crius release? Or is this change put on hold for some other reason? o/ The Mittani of House GoonWaffe,-áFirst of His name, King of the Goons and VFK,-áMaster of griefing,-áLord of the CFC, Warden of the West,-áand Protector of Deklein. |
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R Astraeaus
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 00:30:00 -
[406] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:[quote=Maxdig] 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. Since wh is littered with offline towers, and oflines pos used to secure moons this can be a new occupation, depending on what happens to contents like hangars and pos. Scoop or destroy Cant wait! Nice interaction with ccp
I just hope that whatever mechanic is used allows for some % chance to take over (read steal) the spike, structures, stored items (% chance to drop?) and all mods. It should be more complex than jumping in an abandoned ship, however if you abandon a POS other players should be able to profit thereby.
I too cannot wait for this!!! TurAmarth ElRandir Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro and Unrepentant Blogger Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)= http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/ |
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R Astraeaus
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 01:52:00 -
[407] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Komi Toran wrote:My first thought on this was "Hacking!" So seconding/thirding/fourthing/whatever your linked proposal. We have a tower removal mechanic... its called war deccing.
War Decs are not a GÇÿRemovalGÇÖ mechanicGǪ they're a PvP mechanicGǪ POS Bashing, or grinding, the endless hours of POS shooting is a GÇÿRemovalGÇÖ mechanic, and Wardeccing any corp to bash an offline POS in null or W-space is really idiotic. TurAmarth ElRandir Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro and Unrepentant Blogger Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)= http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/ |
Sigras
Conglomo
793
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 15:55:00 -
[408] - Quote
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:Sigras wrote:Komi Toran wrote:My first thought on this was "Hacking!" So seconding/thirding/fourthing/whatever your linked proposal. We have a tower removal mechanic... its called war deccing. War Decs are not a GÇÿRemovalGÇÖ mechanicGǪ they're a PvP mechanicGǪ POS Bashing, or grinding, the endless hours of POS shooting is a GÇÿRemovalGÇÖ mechanic, and Wardeccing any corp to bash an offline POS in null or W-space is really idiotic. "Oh No! I actually have to do some work to get the results I want which include freeing up a moon in high sec and blowing up a 3-400 million isk asset of my enemies! Why cant CCP just let me be lazy and do it for me???!!!" |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 19:49:00 -
[409] - Quote
Sigras wrote: "Oh No! I actually have to do some work to get the results I want which include freeing up a moon in high sec and blowing up a 3-400 million isk asset of my enemies! Why cant CCP just let me be lazy and do it for me???!!!"
There is a large diffrence between CCP helping to remove towers, and CCP changing mechanics around tower removal. We have no idea what they end up doing, but killing a dickstar in highsec is far from what anyone would call fun. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
10
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 22:15:00 -
[410] - Quote
Joraa Starkmanir wrote:Sigras wrote: "Oh No! I actually have to do some work to get the results I want which include freeing up a moon in high sec and blowing up a 3-400 million isk asset of my enemies! Why cant CCP just let me be lazy and do it for me???!!!"
There is a large diffrence between CCP helping to remove towers, and CCP changing mechanics around tower removal. We have no idea what they end up doing, but killing a dickstar in highsec is far from what anyone would call fun.
any structure grind is far from what anyone will call fun. Watch it be a mechanic that take over a week to complete and that at any point the pos owner can scrap all the work done. |
|
NeobaramMarket
Rheinmetall AG.
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 07:16:00 -
[411] - Quote
how about making more line's on POS Advanced assembly module?
1,000 cpu for 1 line is non-sense.
who's going to use advanced assembly module at POS
how about make it to 3 lines? |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 07:20:00 -
[412] - Quote
NeobaramMarket wrote:how about making more line's on POS Advanced assembly module?
1,000 cpu for 1 line is non-sense.
who's going to use advanced assembly module at POS
how about make it to 3 lines?
Was sure all this line stuff was going away, only limit would be how many jobs you have skills to install. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3413
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 11:38:00 -
[413] - Quote
NeobaramMarket wrote:how about making more line's on POS Advanced assembly module?
1,000 cpu for 1 line is non-sense.
who's going to use advanced assembly module at POS
how about make it to 3 lines?
Welcome to not paying attention.
There are no slots any more. Run as many jobs as you want in an array. (there are benefits to multiple arrays, reducing installation costs.) Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Sigras
Conglomo
802
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 07:02:00 -
[414] - Quote
Joraa Starkmanir wrote:Sigras wrote:"Oh No! I actually have to do some work to get the results I want which include freeing up a moon in high sec and blowing up a 3-400 million isk asset of my enemies! Why cant CCP just let me be lazy and do it for me???!!!" There is a large diffrence between CCP helping to remove towers, and CCP changing mechanics around tower removal. We have no idea what they end up doing, but killing a dickstar in highsec is far from what anyone would call fun. Thats fair, i cant criticize a mechanic that I havent observed yet... |
laura raumal
Anvil Inc. Superior Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 02:54:00 -
[415] - Quote
Sigras wrote: "Oh No! I actually have to do some work to get the results I want which include freeing up a moon in high sec and blowing up a 3-400 million isk asset of my enemies! Why cant CCP just let me be lazy and do it for me???!!!"
Nobody is talking about the ability to take down ONLINE pos's easier. They are talking about the structures that have been sitting around forever, and take hours to kill by numerous players, all without any effort from the POS owner who could easily setup another offline tower in 30 minutes (for a large)
Most low sec moons are littered with offline towers that have been there for years.
So I would reverse what you are saying. If the owner wants to be lazy and not fuel the tower, then there should be consequences to that action. |
Katherine Raven
ALTA Industries Intergalactic Conservation Movement
152
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 16:59:00 -
[416] - Quote
Just read the new Dev Blog on all the POS changes.
I would like you to know that I plan on abusing it.
1) Offline all my defenses 2) Online max number of assembly arrays for the type of job I plan on running 3) Start the job getting max benefit, but start all jobs from the same array 4) Offline all arrays except the one I started the jobs from 5) Online all defenses leaving only the one single array online 6) Repeat for other array types at the same tower if needed (there would be no reason to ever have more than 1 tower)
While I wouldn't mind taking advantage of this and leaving my POS as a massive ball of death should anyone come looking, it would mean two things: first, looking at a POS gives you zero indication of how much isk is currently going through it's arrays, making it impossible to assess the persons activities. Second, it allows you to minimize risk while maximizing reward, which makes no sense.
It would make sense to me if any module that provided a benefit to the job was locked in the online position until the job was either finished or cancelled. This would mean you'd actually have to leave them all running while the job is running. This would let people looking in get a feel for how much you're doing in the POS, as well as forcing you to make fitting decisions on your POS. It also opens up the possibility of having multiple POS' each one dedicated to a different assembly array type. |
Katherine Raven
ALTA Industries Intergalactic Conservation Movement
152
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:03:00 -
[417] - Quote
laura raumal wrote:Sigras wrote: "Oh No! I actually have to do some work to get the results I want which include freeing up a moon in high sec and blowing up a 3-400 million isk asset of my enemies! Why cant CCP just let me be lazy and do it for me???!!!"
Nobody is talking about the ability to take down ONLINE pos's easier. They are talking about the structures that have been sitting around forever, and take hours to kill by numerous players, all without any effort from the POS owner who could easily setup another offline tower in 30 minutes (for a large) Most low sec moons are littered with offline towers that have been there for years. So I would reverse what you are saying. If the owner wants to be lazy and not fuel the tower, then there should be consequences to that action.
There have been suggestions as to things like being able to hack offline towers (though having it not be easy at all) or having POS' continue to burn starbase charters while they are offline and becoming suspect flagged if they ever run out. I think either of those ideas is pretty awesome. What I would hate to see is someone lose a tower to a thief because it was without fuel for 10 minutes. I also agree that there should be some way of removing towers that have been lying around forever, without forcing people who hold moons to be sold to be constantly loosing towers to thieves. |
Catherine Laartii
Providence Guard Templis CALSF
213
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 19:09:00 -
[418] - Quote
What will the advantage be about using the Hyasyoda laboratories? They NEED to have the best multiplier out of all of them by a good margin for their price tag and rarity; anything short of that would be unnecessarily devaluing them. |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 21:30:00 -
[419] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:What will the advantage be about using the Hyasyoda laboratories? They NEED to have the best multiplier out of all of them by a good margin for their price tag and rarity; anything short of that would be unnecessarily devaluing them. It have the best time multiplier, how big the margin is, is realy unimportant as people easily pay a premium for the best no mather how much better it is. The amrgin actualy have to be small enought that there is a real choice to use it or not, and not be the only realistic option |
SalubriousSky Rinah
Cryptic Spear
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 03:31:00 -
[420] - Quote
Removing deadsticks is already possible, as stated by other posts in this thread.
To reiterate, you simply get in a big ship, load some big ammo into big guns, gather a big group of players and open fire at said big target. Then sit back on comms, ping d scan, share war stories and adult content, crack open some beer and 12 hours later watch the said POS explode.
If CCP want to make this easier for players to remove offlined towers without making it a simple 'right click on offlined tower and scoop to cargo mechanic', then why don't they just reduce the hull resists on offlined towers...instead of the bizarre 99% resists they have at the moment.
Sal |
|
Zetaomega333
HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi
75
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 03:42:00 -
[421] - Quote
Katherine Raven wrote:Just read the new Dev Blog on all the POS changes.
I would like you to know that I plan on abusing it.
1) Offline all my defenses 2) Online max number of assembly arrays for the type of job I plan on running 3) Start the job getting max benefit, but start all jobs from the same array 4) Offline all arrays except the one I started the jobs from 5) Online all defenses leaving only the one single array online 6) Repeat for other array types at the same tower if needed (there would be no reason to ever have more than 1 tower)
While I wouldn't mind taking advantage of this and leaving my POS as a massive ball of death should anyone come looking, it would mean two things: first, looking at a POS gives you zero indication of how much isk is currently going through it's arrays, making it impossible to assess the persons activities. Second, it allows you to minimize risk while maximizing reward, which makes no sense.
It would make sense to me if any module that provided a benefit to the job was locked in the online position until the job was either finished or cancelled. This would mean you'd actually have to leave them all running while the job is running. This would let people looking in get a feel for how much you're doing in the POS, as well as forcing you to make fitting decisions on your POS. It also opens up the possibility of having multiple POS' each one dedicated to a different assembly array type.
This is it. This mechanic where by stacking 10-20 or 50 in the case of the component array to get the max bonus is beyond ******** and in no way a proper counter to people only using one. Its an okish idea but the number of arrays to reach the max needs to be stupid lower. From what im getting all supercap builder swill need 3 csaa's. I will need a stupid amount of assembly arrays and just leave them offline for 99% of the time. How does this make it past quality check. |
Ena Shardani
Whale Girth Grand Sky Wizards
3
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 10:17:00 -
[422] - Quote
Any plan on rescaling the X-Large Ship assembly array?.
Just wondering because if we compare the size of ships made in that array, a rorqual doesn't fit in that structure, not mention if we take a dreadnought or a bulky carrier like the Thanatos.
In other things, i like the work you guys are doing, the ideas seems really interesting for avid small scale capital builders like me :D |
Anthar Thebess
507
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 11:10:00 -
[423] - Quote
Online some starbase module -> Put some materials to upgrade it from LVL 1 to 10 * , each upgrade increase CPU / grid usage and reduces material needs. Less modules on grid , you cannot abuse it like someone just stated to offline and online structures
*depending on the module Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
Anthar Thebess
507
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 11:10:00 -
[424] - Quote
Ena Shardani wrote:Any plan on rescaling the X-Large Ship assembly array?.
Just wondering because if we compare the size of ships made in that array, a rorqual doesn't fit in that structure, not mention if we take a dreadnought or a bulky carrier like the Thanatos.
In other things, i like the work you guys are doing, the ideas seems really interesting for avid small scale capital builders like me :D
Undock naglafar from a station ;) Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 13:12:00 -
[425] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Online some starbase module -> Put some materials to upgrade it from LVL 1 to 10 * , each upgrade increase CPU / grid usage and reduces material needs. Less modules on grid , you cannot abuse it like someone just stated to offline and online structures
*depending on the module From what i read, its job cost that gets a reduction with multiple modules. 27% material reduction would be nice tho
Job cost is around 3-4% of the value, possibly going down to 2.2-2.9% (lazy math as this include station tax that POS dont pay) The overall effect of this is small, it may be the whole profit margin on some items but since stuff is already sold at a loss i dont see that as a problem until its the whole profit margin for most items |
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
42
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 23:46:00 -
[426] - Quote
I'm not seeing an increase in the m3 of personal hangar arrays. Any chance we can get that while we're at it?
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
424
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 01:11:00 -
[427] - Quote
so now anybody can start dscanning for thukker arrays to beat on entities/players smaller than them
guaranteed ******* jackpot with billions of isk in investment in cap bpos
great idea |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
481
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 05:16:00 -
[428] - Quote
SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:Removing deadsticks is already possible, as stated by other posts in this thread.
To reiterate, you simply get in a big ship, load some big ammo into big guns, gather a big group of players and open fire at said big target. Then sit back on comms, ping d scan, share war stories and adult content, crack open some beer and 12 hours later watch the said POS explode.
If CCP want to make this easier for players to remove offlined towers without making it a simple 'right click on offlined tower and scoop to cargo mechanic', then why don't they just reduce the hull resists on offlined towers...instead of the bizarre 99% resists they have at the moment.
Sal
While i too want a way to steal offline towers, I never understood why offline towers still had shields. I mean the pos bubble doesnt appear till after a password is set, but that seems a weird difference, the POS bubble is the expansion of the tower shield to cover modules and a particular area. since it goes offline when there is no more fuel, why does the tower structure retain it after?
seems to me that offline structures shouldnt have any shields. armor resits are fine i guess as those (like on ships) are not cap or fuel dependent but supposedly built into the structure itself.
Hull resists are weird as the only way to get them on ships is through Damage control modules which require cap, It should likewise be dependant on the tower having fuel, even when getting bashed i suppose, as long as there is fuel in the bay there should be resists and as long as the tower is onlined, shields. but they should both drop when the tower is naturally offlined. 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.
|
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1029
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 16:45:00 -
[429] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:Removing deadsticks is already possible, as stated by other posts in this thread.
To reiterate, you simply get in a big ship, load some big ammo into big guns, gather a big group of players and open fire at said big target. Then sit back on comms, ping d scan, share war stories and adult content, crack open some beer and 12 hours later watch the said POS explode.
If CCP want to make this easier for players to remove offlined towers without making it a simple 'right click on offlined tower and scoop to cargo mechanic', then why don't they just reduce the hull resists on offlined towers...instead of the bizarre 99% resists they have at the moment.
Sal While i too want a way to steal offline towers, I never understood why offline towers still had shields. I mean the pos bubble doesnt appear till after a password is set, but that seems a weird difference, the POS bubble is the expansion of the tower shield to cover modules and a particular area. since it goes offline when there is no more fuel, why does the tower structure retain it after? seems to me that offline structures shouldnt have any shields. armor resits are fine i guess as those (like on ships) are not cap or fuel dependent but supposedly built into the structure itself. Hull resists are weird as the only way to get them on ships is through Damage control modules which require cap, It should likewise be dependent on the tower having fuel, even when getting bashed i suppose, as long as there is fuel in the bay there should be resists and as long as the tower is onlined, shields. but they should both drop when the tower is naturally offlined. I agree 100%. Off line towers should have 0 shields. They have no power, it is either turned off, or out of fuel, no power should mean no shields. If they want to increase structure hit points to keep them from becoming to easy to pop, fine, but a derelict starbase floating in space with no power should have no shields. You will still have to bash it, it just won't take the same amount of time as an online tower.
True online towers can use hardeners, but still, offline towers should not be able to sustain shields. At the very least have shields slowly degrade when the power goes off. Just like it takes a long time for a tower coming out of reinforcement to regenerate its shields if not being repped. shields could slowly power down over several days when the tower goes offline.
This would allow for a buffer for players to get to there tower, refuel, and put it back online before losing the shields, but derelict towers that have been offline for months, or years, will be easier to take down. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
805
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 16:56:00 -
[430] - Quote
wrong forum |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3432
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 17:31:00 -
[431] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:so now anybody can start dscanning for thukker arrays to beat on entities/players smaller than them
guaranteed ******* jackpot with billions of isk in investment in cap bpos
great idea
Not so much. Only an idiot would keep the results in the array. Or the materials to build the entire thing. I'd expect to see people shuttling materials back and forth from a station with these. No more than a few hundred million in them, and mostly in installed jobs (which means no drop, iirc)
People minimizing their risk. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
808
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 18:43:00 -
[432] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:so now anybody can start dscanning for thukker arrays to beat on entities/players smaller than them
guaranteed ******* jackpot with billions of isk in investment in cap bpos
great idea Not so much. Only an idiot would keep the results in the array. Or the materials to build the entire thing. I'd expect to see people shuttling materials back and forth from a station with these. No more than a few hundred million in them, and mostly in installed jobs (which means no drop, iirc) People minimizing their risk. not to mention bpcs are much less ricky and flexible. Aren't they getting somewhat buffed as well as far as cost to make? |
Captain Davy
Pradox One Proficiency V.
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 20:26:00 -
[433] - Quote
The material waste multiplyer is currently -25% on test server, it is supposed to be -2% correct?
also i dont understand how the "Structure cost scaling" works the devblog says that is good to have multiple arrays on the same pos.
"This bonus is going to be a flat reduction on the whole job cost price, whose amount and total bonus varies depending on the Starbase structure itself."
this will apply to materials cost or what?
If this is related to the cost of installing a job on a pos. why there is a cost at all?? shouldnt it be free?? we are already paying for the pos fuel anyway. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
13
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 21:33:00 -
[434] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:Kusum Fawn wrote:SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:Removing deadsticks is already possible, as stated by other posts in this thread.
To reiterate, you simply get in a big ship, load some big ammo into big guns, gather a big group of players and open fire at said big target. Then sit back on comms, ping d scan, share war stories and adult content, crack open some beer and 12 hours later watch the said POS explode.
If CCP want to make this easier for players to remove offlined towers without making it a simple 'right click on offlined tower and scoop to cargo mechanic', then why don't they just reduce the hull resists on offlined towers...instead of the bizarre 99% resists they have at the moment.
Sal While i too want a way to steal offline towers, I never understood why offline towers still had shields. I mean the pos bubble doesnt appear till after a password is set, but that seems a weird difference, the POS bubble is the expansion of the tower shield to cover modules and a particular area. since it goes offline when there is no more fuel, why does the tower structure retain it after? seems to me that offline structures shouldnt have any shields. armor resits are fine i guess as those (like on ships) are not cap or fuel dependent but supposedly built into the structure itself. Hull resists are weird as the only way to get them on ships is through Damage control modules which require cap, It should likewise be dependent on the tower having fuel, even when getting bashed i suppose, as long as there is fuel in the bay there should be resists and as long as the tower is onlined, shields. but they should both drop when the tower is naturally offlined. I agree 100%. Off line towers should have 0 shields. They have no power, it is either turned off, or out of fuel, no power should mean no shields. If they want to increase structure hit points to keep them from becoming to easy to pop, fine, but a derelict starbase floating in space with no power should have no shields. You will still have to bash it, it just won't take the same amount of time as an online tower. True online towers can use hardeners, but still, offline towers should not be able to sustain shields. At the very least have shields slowly degrade when the power goes off. Just like it takes a long time for a tower coming out of reinforcement to regenerate its shields if not being repped. shields could slowly power down over several days when the tower goes offline. This would allow for a buffer for players to get to there tower, refuel, and put it back online before losing the shields, but derelict towers that have been offline for months, or years, will be easier to take down.
A tower can have fuel and not a POS bubble. The fuel only allows use of the POS bubble. shields run off something else or else I want every ship I cap out to lose all shield instantly cause they have no more energy to keep them going. |
Sigras
Conglomo
808
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 02:57:00 -
[435] - Quote
Honestly it still seems better for arrays to give a significant (say 20% discount) to job cost and then have a +2% job cost per job already in the array.
This would allow a significant bonus and of course the optimal strategy would be to have only one job per array, but at the cost of CPU PG and tedium of moving materials around.
This would allow small corps to grow organically as they needed/wanted additional arrays. |
Torg Rann
Tor Industrials
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 18:56:00 -
[436] - Quote
Add two new modules.
One that adds 1000 cpu and uses 4 blocks of fuel.
One that adds 1,000,000 power grid and used 4 blocks of fuel.
Place a limit of 2 on a small POS, 5 on a medium POS, and 10 on a large POS.
This gives the owners of small and medium POSs more CPU and power grid without having to move to the next size tower. For the owners of large POSs it gives them the option to go crazy! |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
835
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 19:26:00 -
[437] - Quote
Torg Rann wrote:Add two new modules.
One that adds 1000 cpu and uses 4 blocks of fuel.
One that adds 1,000,000 power grid and used 4 blocks of fuel.
Place a limit of 2 on a small POS, 5 on a medium POS, and 10 on a large POS.
This gives the owners of small and medium POSs more CPU and power grid without having to move to the next size tower. For the owners of large POSs it gives them the option to go crazy!
Would that not detract from the need to take more moon space by force? http://meme-generator.me/media/created/d3r3t8.jpg |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 22:52:00 -
[438] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: Would that not detract from the need to take more moon space by force?
It would, it would also make a large POS that more painfull to attack. Remember that highsec dont have dreads doing 10-15k dps, but are left with 1k or less per ship in a reasonable pvp fit. |
SalubriousSky Rinah
Cryptic Spear
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 01:24:00 -
[439] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:Kusum Fawn wrote:SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:Removing deadsticks is already possible, as stated by other posts in this thread.
To reiterate, you simply get in a big ship, load some big ammo into big guns, gather a big group of players and open fire at said big target. Then sit back on comms, ping d scan, share war stories and adult content, crack open some beer and 12 hours later watch the said POS explode.
If CCP want to make this easier for players to remove offlined towers without making it a simple 'right click on offlined tower and scoop to cargo mechanic', then why don't they just reduce the hull resists on offlined towers...instead of the bizarre 99% resists they have at the moment.
Sal While i too want a way to steal offline towers, I never understood why offline towers still had shields. I mean the pos bubble doesnt appear till after a password is set, but that seems a weird difference, the POS bubble is the expansion of the tower shield to cover modules and a particular area. since it goes offline when there is no more fuel, why does the tower structure retain it after? seems to me that offline structures shouldnt have any shields. armor resits are fine i guess as those (like on ships) are not cap or fuel dependent but supposedly built into the structure itself. Hull resists are weird as the only way to get them on ships is through Damage control modules which require cap, It should likewise be dependent on the tower having fuel, even when getting bashed i suppose, as long as there is fuel in the bay there should be resists and as long as the tower is onlined, shields. but they should both drop when the tower is naturally offlined. I agree 100%. Off line towers should have 0 shields. They have no power, it is either turned off, or out of fuel, no power should mean no shields. If they want to increase structure hit points to keep them from becoming to easy to pop, fine, but a derelict starbase floating in space with no power should have no shields. You will still have to bash it, it just won't take the same amount of time as an online tower. True online towers can use hardeners, but still, offline towers should not be able to sustain shields. At the very least have shields slowly degrade when the power goes off. Just like it takes a long time for a tower coming out of reinforcement to regenerate its shields if not being repped. shields could slowly power down over several days when the tower goes offline. This would allow for a buffer for players to get to there tower, refuel, and put it back online before losing the shields, but derelict towers that have been offline for months, or years, will be easier to take down.
As far as I understood it, the 'POS bubble' is the 'forcefield' that prevents any unauthorised players from entering the enclosed area. It is the fuel that allows for this 'forcefield' to be set in place. The shields have nothing to do with 'fuel', just as in the ships that we fly (i.e. the shields do not depend on capacitor or any fuel). Hence, it is reasonable for POSes offlined or online to posses shields.
What is not reasonable, is to give offlined POS towers 99% hull resists...the only advantage is of course to grant the ability to dead stick moons, which is valuable in itself. How this ability equates to high sec life remains debatable in my opinion. |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
484
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 04:41:00 -
[440] - Quote
SalubriousSky Rinah wrote: As far as I understood it, the 'POS bubble' is the 'forcefield' that prevents any unauthorised players from entering the enclosed area. It is the fuel that allows for this 'forcefield' to be set in place. The shields have nothing to do with 'fuel', just as in the ships that we fly (i.e. the shields do not depend on capacitor or any fuel). Hence, it is reasonable for POSes offlined or online to posses shields.
What is not reasonable, is to give offlined POS towers 99% hull resists...the only advantage is of course to grant the ability to dead stick moons, which is valuable in itself. How this ability equates to high sec life remains debatable in my opinion.
Lady Rift wrote: A tower can have fuel and not a POS bubble. The fuel only allows use of the POS bubble. shields run off something else or else I want every ship I cap out to lose all shield instantly cause they have no more energy to keep them going.
These are both valid points, The towers shield is not directly tied to the fuel use/disuse. It is the structure itself that retains these properties. Wat i am saying is that, currently there is no significant difference between bashing an online defenselss pos and an offline tower in terms of HP (ignoring reinforced ). This is the part that i feel needs to be changed. With the vast majority of a towers HP in shields, the only part that recharges hp, dropping the towers shield when offline would be a significant change to clearing offlined towers without making it too easy to clear. It is still someones property and should have some resilience to uncoordinated attacks.
If shields are dropped, I think that structures should retain hull resists, as that does not regenerate over downtime and a partially bashed tower will stay partially bashed until it is either repped or taken. They do not have the same significance in bashing that shield regen does.
As to hacking towers for stealing. I was thinking that This would be a perfect use for Strontium in an offline capacity. A large tower has a 50,000 m/3 strontium bay which at max capacity can hold 16,666 strontium units. An odd number when towers use stront in 100, 200 or 400 unit increments and equals 41 hours of rf timer, (1 day 17 hours). Allow offline towers to be hacked, using the hacking minigame mechanics, a successful hack will remove 600 stront from the bay and render the tower immune to further hacks for one day. An unsuccessful hack will remove 200. This means that it will take 28 successful hacks to empty a large towers fully filled stront bay and it will take 84 unsuccessful hacks. This provides tower owners, those that are still around, to return from vacations or whatever to refuel their towers and defend it. this also provides ways to take possession of abandoned towers but not without ample time for others to notice and attempt to steal the tower themselves. These timers and the amount of stront left within the tower should not be viewable. This should be scaled to the size of the tower to be of equal times.
Large 50,000 m/3 -16,666 stront, 600/200 - 28/84 Medium 25,000 m/3 - 8,333 - 300/100 - 28/84 Small 12,500 m/3 - 4,166 -150/50 - 28/84
these two proposals when used together should offer options that will be used in different situations. variability in stront filling will randomize the theft vulnerability of towers to some degree as will the lowering of recharging hp make them more open to destruction. Neither option makes it too easy, in my mind to kill offline towers and doesnt affect defended towers.
I am also in favor of all structure shields being 0 when offline, and improving online modules shields. although i do not know how well that will work if mods ever get the power rebalance they need. 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.
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
576
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 10:16:00 -
[441] - Quote
This wouldallow for sticks to be maintained relatively cheaply by restocking stront though. I still preferthe idea of shields goingdown when the tower is offlined and continual damage being done by meteorite strikes etc that way the owner not onlly has to online again but has to repair the tower. |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 11:46:00 -
[442] - Quote
It dot have to be to costly to maintain, but HAVING to maintain is a large step in the right direction |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
485
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 16:29:00 -
[443] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:This wouldallow for sticks to be maintained relatively cheaply by restocking stront though. I still preferthe idea of shields goingdown when the tower is offlined and continual damage being done by meteorite strikes etc that way the owner not onlly has to online again but has to repair the tower.
Joraa Starkmanir wrote:It dot have to be to costly to maintain, but HAVING to maintain is a large step in the right direction
Exactly, as long as someone is actually maintaining it, visiting it once every month to keep it from being taken is an acceptable level of activity. It is the same for secured cans in space. 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.
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
835
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 20:33:00 -
[444] - Quote
Joraa Starkmanir wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote: Would that not detract from the need to take more moon space by force?
It would, it would also make a large POS that more painfull to attack. Remember that highsec dont have dreads doing 10-15k dps, but are left with 1k or less per ship in a reasonable pvp fit. You're not selling this idea to me.
The idea that modules could be used to upgrade tower capabilities instead of upgrading the tower to a larger size would just make the larger sizes redundant. On top of that, it would detract from the process of taking other moons to aquire more capacity, which would detract from POS's as a combat driver.
And lastly, (I may be wrong, as I have not done any moon mining of any kind as yet,) it could also allow a single POS to aquire even more moon goo per cycle. If that is the case then I think quite a few people would agree with me when I say that it would be a HUGE mistake to implement the idea.
Anyway...
CCP have already stated in other posts that they are looking at ways to remove inactive POS's. I am personally quite hopeful that there will be a means of stealing them. Failing that I would be happy to see the hull resistances of inactive POS's degrade the longer they are inactive, as though the backup power keeping the resists up slowly diminishes over time - unless it is recharged by the generator that runs on fuel blocks. A bit like the battery in your PC that keeps the internal stuff ticking over while it's turned off. http://meme-generator.me/media/created/d3r3t8.jpg |
SalubriousSky Rinah
Cryptic Spear
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 20:55:00 -
[445] - Quote
Can someone just verify my maths for me? (On night shifts at the moment, so not sure what time of day it is either )
For a small Caldari tower:
Structure HP = 1,000,000 HP
So, with 99% resists, this equates to (1,000,000)/(1.0-0.99) = (1,000,000)/0.01 = 100,000,000 HP
For a large Caldari tower:
Structure HP = 4,000,000 HP
So, with 99% resists, this equates to (4,000,000)/(1.0-0.99) = (4,000,000)/0.01 = 400,000,000 HP
So, if I am correct, why does it matter whether offlined towers have shields or not? Since the 'effective' HP of their structure is so darn high? So, an effective and easy way to deal with the removal of old POSes would be to reduce their structure resists significantly.
I also like the idea that these offlined towers should be maintained in some way to prevent degradation over time, so if CCP does not deem it worthy to reduce the resists, maybe the degradation should occure to the POSes structure instead?
Sal |
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 21:00:00 -
[446] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Joraa Starkmanir wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote: Would that not detract from the need to take more moon space by force?
It would, it would also make a large POS that more painfull to attack. Remember that highsec dont have dreads doing 10-15k dps, but are left with 1k or less per ship in a reasonable pvp fit. You're not selling this idea to me.
That may have something to do with me agreeing. I jsut mentioned that it would also make a POS harder to take, not only less needed |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
17
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 09:58:00 -
[447] - Quote
SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:Can someone just verify my maths for me? (On night shifts at the moment, so not sure what time of day it is either ) For a small Caldari tower: Structure HP = 1,000,000 HP So, with 99% resists, this equates to (1,000,000)/(1.0-0.99) = (1,000,000)/0.01 = 100,000,000 HPFor a large Caldari tower: Structure HP = 4,000,000 HP So, with 99% resists, this equates to (4,000,000)/(1.0-0.99) = (4,000,000)/0.01 = 400,000,000 HPSo, if I am correct, why does it matter whether offlined towers have shields or not? Since the 'effective' HP of their structure is so darn high? So, an effective and easy way to deal with the removal of old POSes would be to reduce their structure resists significantly. I also like the idea that these offlined towers should be maintained in some way to prevent degradation over time, so if CCP does not deem it worthy to reduce the resists, maybe the degradation should occure to the POSes structure instead? Sal Edit: btw, when do the 99% resists on the tower actually come into force? I'm assuming that they are there when a tower runs out of fuel and becomes offlined.
The 99% hull resist is given to anchored modules while the tower is online. The tower itself does not have 99% hull resists. |
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R Astraeaus
65
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 00:45:00 -
[448] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Joraa Starkmanir wrote:Sigras wrote:"Oh No! I actually have to do some work to get the results I want which include freeing up a moon in high sec and blowing up a 3-400 million isk asset of my enemies! Why cant CCP just let me be lazy and do it for me???!!!" There is a large diffrence between CCP helping to remove towers, and CCP changing mechanics around tower removal. We have no idea what they end up doing, but killing a dickstar in highsec is far from what anyone would call fun. Thats fair, i cant criticize a mechanic that I havent observed yet...
Sigras, this is what I meant... No I do not want CCP to 'do it for me' I just want a different mechanic that (1) is more fun and (2) gives us chance to TAKE the tower and mods. Not just shoot at it for hours only to assplode (and waste) it. TurAmarth ElRandir Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro and Unrepentant Blogger Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)= http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/ |
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R Astraeaus
65
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 01:06:00 -
[449] - Quote
SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:Removing deadsticks is already possible, as stated by other posts in this thread.
To reiterate, you simply get in a big ship, load some big ammo into big guns, gather a big group of players and open fire at said big target. Then sit back on comms, ping d scan, share war stories and adult content, crack open some beer and 12 hours later watch the said POS explode.
If CCP want to make this easier for players to remove offlined towers without making it a simple 'right click on offlined tower and scoop to cargo mechanic', then why don't they just reduce the hull resists on offlined towers...instead of the bizarre 99% resists they have at the moment.
Sal
First... wow... you can shoots them? really?? =\
Ok, with that outta the way... what the ALL rest of us are taking about it a new mechanic to allow players to actually take control of deadsticks. Something OTHER than a beer laden half DAY of wasted time ending only in the destruction (IE more waste) of said spike.
Oh and if you actually enjoy POS bashes you probably would really love mining. TurAmarth ElRandir Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro and Unrepentant Blogger Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)= http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/ |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
20
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 20:59:00 -
[450] - Quote
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:Removing deadsticks is already possible, as stated by other posts in this thread.
To reiterate, you simply get in a big ship, load some big ammo into big guns, gather a big group of players and open fire at said big target. Then sit back on comms, ping d scan, share war stories and adult content, crack open some beer and 12 hours later watch the said POS explode.
If CCP want to make this easier for players to remove offlined towers without making it a simple 'right click on offlined tower and scoop to cargo mechanic', then why don't they just reduce the hull resists on offlined towers...instead of the bizarre 99% resists they have at the moment.
Sal First... wow... you can shoots them? really?? =\ Ok, with that outta the way... what the ALL rest of us are taking about it a new mechanic to allow players to actually take control of deadsticks. Something OTHER than a beer laden half DAY of wasted time ending only in the destruction (IE more waste) of said spike. Oh and if you actually enjoy POS bashes you probably would really love mining.
58 mil hitpoints on a large tower. that's 21 hours for one 800 dps ship or 2 hours for 10 ships. medium tower is at 29 mil hp small is at 15 mil hp
its really only a half day activity if you try to do it solo |
|
Joraa Starkmanir
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 22:49:00 -
[451] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:
58 mil hitpoints on a large tower. that's 21 hours for one 800 dps ship or 2 hours for 10 ships. medium tower is at 29 mil hp small is at 15 mil hp
its really only a half day activity if you try to do it solo
Still 21 manhours to remove something thats already abandoned (its not online, so its not active), and thats after you wait 24hours for the war to start. So 24hr5min if using a full fleet, or 45hours solo |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
838
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 23:36:00 -
[452] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:Removing deadsticks is already possible, as stated by other posts in this thread.
To reiterate, you simply get in a big ship, load some big ammo into big guns, gather a big group of players and open fire at said big target. Then sit back on comms, ping d scan, share war stories and adult content, crack open some beer and 12 hours later watch the said POS explode.
If CCP want to make this easier for players to remove offlined towers without making it a simple 'right click on offlined tower and scoop to cargo mechanic', then why don't they just reduce the hull resists on offlined towers...instead of the bizarre 99% resists they have at the moment.
Sal First... wow... you can shoots them? really?? =\ Ok, with that outta the way... what the ALL rest of us are taking about it a new mechanic to allow players to actually take control of deadsticks. Something OTHER than a beer laden half DAY of wasted time ending only in the destruction (IE more waste) of said spike. Oh and if you actually enjoy POS bashes you probably would really love mining. 58 mil hitpoints on a large tower. that's 21 hours for one 800 dps ship or 2 hours for 10 ships. medium tower is at 29 mil hp small is at 15 mil hp its really only a half day activity if you try to do it solo
You've forgotten to take into account the fact that the tower regens HP like a passive shield.
On one of my alts I have actually participated in a POS bash in highsec and it took 6 or 7 of us, with a 500 dps average, about 20 hours to drop a large caldari tower.
I can quite honestly say that it is impossible to blow a tower solo in highsec. http://meme-generator.me/media/created/d3r3t8.jpg |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
20
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 14:41:00 -
[453] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Lady Rift wrote:TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:Removing deadsticks is already possible, as stated by other posts in this thread.
To reiterate, you simply get in a big ship, load some big ammo into big guns, gather a big group of players and open fire at said big target. Then sit back on comms, ping d scan, share war stories and adult content, crack open some beer and 12 hours later watch the said POS explode.
If CCP want to make this easier for players to remove offlined towers without making it a simple 'right click on offlined tower and scoop to cargo mechanic', then why don't they just reduce the hull resists on offlined towers...instead of the bizarre 99% resists they have at the moment.
Sal First... wow... you can shoots them? really?? =\ Ok, with that outta the way... what the ALL rest of us are taking about it a new mechanic to allow players to actually take control of deadsticks. Something OTHER than a beer laden half DAY of wasted time ending only in the destruction (IE more waste) of said spike. Oh and if you actually enjoy POS bashes you probably would really love mining. 58 mil hitpoints on a large tower. that's 21 hours for one 800 dps ship or 2 hours for 10 ships. medium tower is at 29 mil hp small is at 15 mil hp its really only a half day activity if you try to do it solo You've forgotten to take into account the fact that the tower regens HP like a passive shield. On one of my alts I have actually participated in a POS bash in highsec and it took 6 or 7 of us, with a 500 dps average, about 20 hours to drop a large caldari tower. I can quite honestly say that it is impossible to blow a tower solo in highsec.
its peak recharge on a large is like 600hp/s 3/4 of one ship at 800dps.
also note I used 800 dps for my numbers as that's an easy to reach in many ships.
and ya i'll revise my numbers to include the passive recharge. (which is just me going to be adding one ship)
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
838
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 18:57:00 -
[454] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:its peak recharge on a large is like 600hp/s 3/4 of one ship at 800dps.
also note I used 800 dps for my numbers as that's an easy to reach in many ships.
and ya i'll revise my numbers to include the passive recharge. (which is just me going to be adding one ship)
And as I said, it took about 20 hours, (I think it was more actually,) @3000 dps.
Even with 2400dp, (3 ships @800dps average,) let alone 2 ships @800 each (and on a related note you can top out at 1270dps using lasers and drones with a T2 fit Armagedon without using rigs @ all lvl 5 skills,) you will not be able to break the tower before server shutdown, where it will start to regen again through the downtime. http://meme-generator.me/media/created/d3r3t8.jpg |
A'Tolkar
Carlson's Raiders
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 19:48:00 -
[455] - Quote
Please allow the anchoring of reaction arrays in any security status solar system, not just < 0.4. While you are at it, allow the same for Small Mobile 'Rote'/'Hybrid' Siphon.
Thank you. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
20
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 22:24:00 -
[456] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Lady Rift wrote:its peak recharge on a large is like 600hp/s 3/4 of one ship at 800dps.
also note I used 800 dps for my numbers as that's an easy to reach in many ships.
and ya i'll revise my numbers to include the passive recharge. (which is just me going to be adding one ship)
And as I said, it took about 20 hours, (I think it was more actually,) @3000 dps. Even with 2400dp, (3 ships @800dps average,) let alone 2 ships @800 each (and on a related note you can top out at 1270dps using lasers and drones with a T2 fit Armagedon without using rigs @ all lvl 5 skills,) you will not be able to break the tower before server shutdown, where it will start to regen again through the downtime.
thats what the blob is there for |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
239
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 09:40:00 -
[457] - Quote
Putting a pos in 0.9 to try out the research lab changes. Large Caldari with 7 Research laboratory Online everything, place BPO in Corp hangar in No 1 lab.
Open Industry tab - Facilities, Corp owned facilities, Material effeciency research. Shows 3 X Mobile Laboratory - None of which shows the BPO I placed in there.
And really?? If your going to require 7 Labs to get maximum Benefit, make it so only 1 of them shows in the interface. As it is, the interface does not show the name given to each lab and only shows the total labs (in this case 3 of 7), all named by type as Mobile Laboratory. If nothing else, include a tab for names
NB; The industry tab needs to be able to be resized. To see Install Date and End Date requires resizing other info sections. Makes the whole thing look really untidy.
Not being able to bid on team auctions is getting blo*dy annoying My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
239
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 09:44:00 -
[458] - Quote
A'Tolkar wrote:Please allow the anchoring of reaction arrays in any security status solar system, not just < 0.4. While you are at it, allow the same for Small Mobile 'Rote'/'Hybrid' Siphon.
Thank you. Why ? If lowsec is too dangerous for you - Don't moon mine, that's easy. You want the isk - Take the risk. My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care.. |
A'Tolkar
Carlson's Raiders
10
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:53:00 -
[459] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:A'Tolkar wrote:Please allow the anchoring of reaction arrays in any security status solar system, not just < 0.4. While you are at it, allow the same for Small Mobile 'Rote'/'Hybrid' Siphon.
Thank you. Why ? If lowsec is too dangerous for you - Don't moon mine, that's easy. You want the isk - Take the risk.
I never said anything about allowing a moon harvesting array to be anchorable in any sec status. I can refine ore and reprocess modules and process ice come Crius (any sec status). Why not be able to run reactions as well? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
587
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 09:47:00 -
[460] - Quote
A'Tolkar wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:A'Tolkar wrote:Please allow the anchoring of reaction arrays in any security status solar system, not just < 0.4. While you are at it, allow the same for Small Mobile 'Rote'/'Hybrid' Siphon.
Thank you. Why ? If lowsec is too dangerous for you - Don't moon mine, that's easy. You want the isk - Take the risk. I never said anything about allowing a moon harvesting array to be anchorable in any sec status. I can refine ore and reprocess modules and process ice come Crius (any sec status). Why not be able to run reactions as well?
I like the idea of allowing reactions in any space, this would encourage more sneaky goo theft with siphons... |
|
GodsWork
Realm of God
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 15:06:00 -
[461] - Quote
Can we add this to towers? to limit tower control from mega coalitions? for 0.0 only....
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=356422&find=unread |
GodsWork
Realm of God Triple Penetration Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 15:06:42 -
[462] - Quote
Can we add this to towers? to limit tower control from mega coalitions? for 0.0 only....
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=356422&find=unread |
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID Sick N' Twisted
838
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 21:57:00 -
[463] - Quote
The option of granting Alliance level access that equals that of corporate access would be awesome. http://meme-generator.me/media/created/d3r3t8.jpg |
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID Takahashi Alliance
874
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 21:57:50 -
[464] - Quote
The option of granting Alliance level access that equals that of corporate access would be awesome.
Friends
|
Timcanpy Yvormes
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:13:00 -
[465] - Quote
i went to the test server, how can i get the max "Max bonus per structure"
Lets say it's for the Advanced Medium Ship Assembly. Do i need 13 to have max bonus??
If yes, i tried to anchor and i onlined 5 and i didnt get 10%. Did i read wrong about how to get the max bonus?
|
Timcanpy Yvormes
Lero Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:13:59 -
[466] - Quote
i went to the test server, how can i get the max "Max bonus per structure"
Lets say it's for the Advanced Medium Ship Assembly. Do i need 13 to have max bonus??
If yes, i tried to anchor and i onlined 5 and i didnt get 10%. Did i read wrong about how to get the max bonus?
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
920
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 00:03:00 -
[467] - Quote
Timcanpy Yvormes wrote:i went to the test server, how can i get the max "Max bonus per structure"
Lets say it's for the Advanced Medium Ship Assembly. Do i need 13 to have max bonus??
If yes, i tried to anchor and i onlined 5 and i didnt get 10%. Did i read wrong about how to get the max bonus?
If you're referring to the multiple array thingy I believe it's still bugged along with applying skills at a POS |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1773
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 00:03:40 -
[468] - Quote
Timcanpy Yvormes wrote:i went to the test server, how can i get the max "Max bonus per structure"
Lets say it's for the Advanced Medium Ship Assembly. Do i need 13 to have max bonus??
If yes, i tried to anchor and i onlined 5 and i didnt get 10%. Did i read wrong about how to get the max bonus?
If you're referring to the multiple array thingy I believe it's still bugged along with applying skills at a POS |
Timcanpy Yvormes
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 08:21:00 -
[469] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Timcanpy Yvormes wrote:i went to the test server, how can i get the max "Max bonus per structure"
Lets say it's for the Advanced Medium Ship Assembly. Do i need 13 to have max bonus??
If yes, i tried to anchor and i onlined 5 and i didnt get 10%. Did i read wrong about how to get the max bonus?
If you're referring to the multiple array thingy I believe it's still bugged along with applying skills at a POS
Tks, i was refering to that, i didn't know it was bugged Because i wanted to test what to put in my POS |
Timcanpy Yvormes
Lero Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 08:21:35 -
[470] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Timcanpy Yvormes wrote:i went to the test server, how can i get the max "Max bonus per structure"
Lets say it's for the Advanced Medium Ship Assembly. Do i need 13 to have max bonus??
If yes, i tried to anchor and i onlined 5 and i didnt get 10%. Did i read wrong about how to get the max bonus?
If you're referring to the multiple array thingy I believe it's still bugged along with applying skills at a POS
Tks, i was refering to that, i didn't know it was bugged Because i wanted to test what to put in my POS |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3853
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 22:57:00 -
[471] - Quote
Timcanpy Yvormes wrote:Rowells wrote:Timcanpy Yvormes wrote:i went to the test server, how can i get the max "Max bonus per structure"
Lets say it's for the Advanced Medium Ship Assembly. Do i need 13 to have max bonus??
If yes, i tried to anchor and i onlined 5 and i didnt get 10%. Did i read wrong about how to get the max bonus?
If you're referring to the multiple array thingy I believe it's still bugged along with applying skills at a POS Tks, i was refering to that, i didn't know it was bugged Because i wanted to test what to put in my POS It has been removed. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
4388
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 22:57:04 -
[472] - Quote
Timcanpy Yvormes wrote:Rowells wrote:Timcanpy Yvormes wrote:i went to the test server, how can i get the max "Max bonus per structure"
Lets say it's for the Advanced Medium Ship Assembly. Do i need 13 to have max bonus??
If yes, i tried to anchor and i onlined 5 and i didnt get 10%. Did i read wrong about how to get the max bonus?
If you're referring to the multiple array thingy I believe it's still bugged along with applying skills at a POS Tks, i was refering to that, i didn't know it was bugged Because i wanted to test what to put in my POS It has been removed. |
Alundil
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
592
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 22:04:00 -
[473] - Quote
Soon...
http://i.imgur.com/2GrkUTR.jpg
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
780
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 22:04:12 -
[474] - Quote
Soon...
http://i.imgur.com/2GrkUTR.jpg
I'm right behind you
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
22868
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 08:47:00 -
[475] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Design labs: Time multiplier for invention: 0.5 (was 0.5) this is the biggest and most outrageous change and I will unsubscribe my 50 accounts if this change is done.
you have been warned. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous Safety's Set To Red
25642
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 08:47:45 -
[476] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Design labs: Time multiplier for invention: 0.5 (was 0.5) this is the biggest and most outrageous change and I will unsubscribe my 50 accounts if this change is done.
you have been warned.
Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Fifth Blade
The Nyan Cat Pirates Disband.
21
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 22:35:00 -
[477] - Quote
Quote:Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3. Please increase this by one septillion, as this cannot hold remotely enough for even a small cycle like the one I just started. I posted about the same issue here
I removed my component array pos (11 component arrays, each 1m m3), I am now left with one component array containing 1.5m m3. It simply isn't enough and it means you constantly have to move materials back and forth until you can eventually start all the jobs, and then you can't deliver them all.
Effectively this removes the ability to start anything remotely. Either increase the capacity to prevent this, or allow it to access other anchored storage (like silos). |
Fifth Blade
The Nyan Cat Pirates Disband.
36
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 22:35:39 -
[478] - Quote
Quote:Component Assembly Array: from 1,000,000 m3 to 1,500,000 m3. Please increase this by one septillion, as this cannot hold remotely enough for even a small cycle like the one I just started. I posted about the same issue here
I removed my component array pos (11 component arrays, each 1m m3), I am now left with one component array containing 1.5m m3. It simply isn't enough and it means you constantly have to move materials back and forth until you can eventually start all the jobs, and then you can't deliver them all.
Effectively this removes the ability to start anything remotely. Either increase the capacity to prevent this, or allow it to access other anchored storage (like silos). |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 23:14:00 -
[479] - Quote
Can this topic lose its sticky now? |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 23:14:17 -
[480] - Quote
Can this topic lose its sticky now? |
|
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
713
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 03:30:00 -
[481] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4951905#post4951905
the mighty POS is obsolete. |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
828
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 03:30:25 -
[482] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4951905#post4951905
the mighty POS is obsolete. |
VeronicaKell
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
19
|
Posted - 2014.08.29 17:35:00 -
[483] - Quote
For the love of Bob and all that is in a POS, can we please get commas or decimals or something so I can tell the difference between thousands, ten thousands, hundred thousands, and millions of units of Power Grid without using a friggin microscope and a pencil to count decimal places.
Or we could just switch everything to GW instead of MW and get rid of three useless decimal spots all together.
This is a formal request for commas on the Heads Up Display in POSs.
http://imgur.com/q469K41
Thank you. That is all. |
VeronicaKell
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
21
|
Posted - 2014.08.29 17:35:53 -
[484] - Quote
For the love of Bob and all that is in a POS, can we please get commas or decimals or something so I can tell the difference between thousands, ten thousands, hundred thousands, and millions of units of Power Grid without using a friggin microscope and a pencil to count decimal places.
Or we could just switch everything to GW instead of MW and get rid of three useless decimal spots all together.
This is a formal request for commas on the Heads Up Display in POSs.
http://imgur.com/q469K41
Thank you. That is all. |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:41:00 -
[485] - Quote
How about having customized stations like the ones Sansha has in the Incursions along with customized station modules and the ability to add scenery to a POS like being able to anchor asteroids, ship wrecks or Pleasure Hubs at a POS? |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
195
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:41:55 -
[486] - Quote
How about having customized stations like the ones Sansha has in the Incursions along with customized station modules and the ability to add scenery to a POS like being able to anchor asteroids, ship wrecks or Pleasure Hubs at a POS? |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
176
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 23:54:00 -
[487] - Quote
Maybe a Large Mobile Station would be better than an actual POS.
The Mobile Station's would come in three sizes - Small, Medium and Large like the old POS. The only difference is that they would be modular in design like the T3 Cruisers that would need to be assembled in a station loaded aboard a special transport ship and then deployed in the location desired.
The small and Medium Mobile Stations would able to be assembled in a regular station but the large mobile station would need to be assembled in a separate station that would need to be put on a Assembly Line where the components of the station are added by workers similar to the new manufacturing upgrade.
Once the Large Mobile Station was assembled it could be transported to the location via specialized transport or using the stations transport array to transport the Large Mobile Depot to its anchoring location. |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
195
|
Posted - 2014.09.07 23:54:05 -
[488] - Quote
Maybe a Large Mobile Station would be better than an actual POS.
The Mobile Station's would come in three sizes - Small, Medium and Large like the old POS. The only difference is that they would be modular in design like the T3 Cruisers that would need to be assembled in a station loaded aboard a special transport ship and then deployed in the location desired.
The small and Medium Mobile Stations would able to be assembled in a regular station but the large mobile station would need to be assembled in a separate station that would need to be put on a Assembly Line where the components of the station are added by workers similar to the new manufacturing upgrade.
Once the Large Mobile Station was assembled it could be transported to the location via specialized transport or using the stations transport array to transport the Large Mobile Depot to its anchoring location. |
Dindil
Gladius Minervus
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 00:52:00 -
[489] - Quote
Could we have the user interface for refining minerals and ice that is used in NPC stations for POS refineries? Would be nice to actually see the refining efficiency in game on a POS. |
Dindil
Gladius Minervus
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 00:52:50 -
[490] - Quote
Could we have the user interface for refining minerals and ice that is used in NPC stations for POS refineries? Would be nice to actually see the refining efficiency in game on a POS. |
|
Deltan Lilthanzarus
Jonin Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 11:20:14 -
[491] - Quote
Hi all,
I have a concern relating to having to place BPOs into the laboratories. I have no issue with the increased risk involved. My concern is that in order to minimise risk I should only have 1 or 2 BS BPO(s) or equivalent value in any one POS. If for some reason I am a reasonable distance away I then have to travel back to the POS system and swap out the BPO(s). Also be aware that many corps cannot afford to run multiple POS making BPO swapping a necessity.
I suggest that either the scientific networking skill be enhanced in order to be able to perform this function remotely or a new skill be introduced to perform this function. I recognises that this removes the risk involved in transporting the BPOs, but I believe that the risk in leaving the BPO in the array offsets this to a large extent as travel time from station to POS is usually tiny. I also recognise that there are certain workarounds such as dedicated research alts that remain in system permanently but this reduces the necessity for training scientific networking on those alts beyond 1 and if I have to leave station anyway, then allow me to start jobs while I am at the POS so I don't have to bother training it at all except for my main who is often away from home.
I know that there are a great number of people interested in renting laboratory time to random capsuleers/corps. If a decent security system was implemented (with individual permissions a la personal hangar) along with a BPO transport skill to allow people access to their subsection of your lab(s) without being given access to the POS itself would create a whole new industry along with competition and all the lovely associated pew. Might be a decent trade-off for the reduced risk-of travel.
Haven't thought this totally through but it's my two cents worth |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |