I'm reluctant to base numbers on something so fungible without a really solid justification. If we change cap build costs in future (or add new ones), I'd prefer not to have to mess with component blueprint stats too.

Bump for answer on this. Hoping for answer from CCP Greyscale

what do you think is more important ?

Users that constantly have to deal with annyoing numbers every time they build a cap ?

or

CCP Developers that have to deal with annoying numbers once every few years ?

:P

As long as the max run number stays BIG enough everything is alright. Things get annyoing once they are too small.

Currently, with the 5 run copies, it is necessary to queue over 1300 separate BPC jobs for the components for a Titan build. That's an hour of pure queuing twice a day (using 10 characters or 100 slots) for a week or getting on for 15 hours of mindless repetitive clicking. 10 run BPCs will halve that but it will still leave a serious amount of incredibly boring 'gameplay'. However, if the target is 48 hour runs then that should be 20 run BPCs rather than 10 runs I believe, and that should reduce the tedium to a manageable level.

Currently I have all the cap components at 10, as I'm rounding to multiples of 10 and with base numbers it doesn't qualify for a 20. I could kick cap components up to say a week's build time base, given the volumes involved.

i was talking about capitals, not supercapitals. i could give you a "good" definite number for each component, but i'm sitting in class right now and listening to a talk about life expectancy in east and west germany :D

And then we're getting into super-abstruse land :)

I've kicked *all* components (counting cap T1/T2, normal T2, T3, and RAMs) up to a week base build time because that seems like a pretty clean change, and the point about them intermediate components is a good one. T1 cap components are thus all sitting at 40 max runs right now.

Given our relative unhappiness with the state of jump logistics, I'm pretty much on the fence on this issue right now :/

And then we're getting into super-abstruse land :)

I've kicked *all* components (counting cap T1/T2, normal T2, T3, and RAMs) up to a week base build time because that seems like a pretty clean change, and the point about them intermediate components is a good one. T1 cap components are thus all sitting at 40 max runs right now.

Can you explain more specifically what you're unhappy with about the state of jump logistics? Because it seems to be that CCP is sort of taking these sideways shots at nerfing JFs without either:

1. Being clear about what you don't like right now or
2. Establishing what you want to accomplish via a nerf

It seems like the logical pathway is "we are kind of unhappy with jump logistics right now" >>> "therefore, incidental nerfs are pretty much fine by us"

You can see where that isn't very compelling logic...

I ran Goonswarm's jump freighter service for 3 years. We're talking about literal billions of cubic meters moved. Your database guys can pull the contract stats -- one month of war we did around 400 million m3 last summer. I know of where I speak when I tell you that JF logistics exist out of necessity. What I am saying is that while JFs are powerful right now, their power is an effect and not a cause.

The reasons that JFs are powerful are twofold:

1. JFs are powerful because people want to live in nullsec and yet cannot produce the raw materials or finished good necessary to do so without constant importation from highsec. That drives incredible demand for transportation services -- despite the fact that providing these services is one of the most boring gameplay elements of EVE.

2. Because of the existence of jump drives in general and specifically the dominance of supercapitals in sov warfare, players are able to maintain vast, 15-region empires. Goonswarm's CFC is one of these and the PL and N3 renting empires are more examples. These coalitions have existed since well before Dominion but Dominion's mechanics have solidified them as the optimal way to achieve victory in nullsec. Because of the existence of these empires, JFs are in high demand to move goods all over the region -- but the demand for this is created by the existence of the empires in the first place, not the other way around. Again, effect, not cause.

The way to fix jump logistics is to fix #1 and #2. I'm aware that Kronos is making great strides in half of #1 by enabling much better local production in nullsec. That still doesn't solve the "raw materials" issue for T1 low-end minerals in particular, but it is a decent start. #2 obviously requires larger revamps to supercapitals, capitals, and/or jump drives in general which I won't comment on extensively.

Moving on, what this means is that even if you nerf JFs, it won't change the fundamental need for them. In economics terms, the demand for JF services is highly inelastic. No matter what you do the demand will stay pretty much constant. That means:

1. If you make JFs cost more, people will pay more.
2. If you make fuel cost more, people will pay more.
3. If you make JFs harder to operate, people will train the skills and spend the additional time.
4. If you make JFs riskier to operate, people will compensate as best they can or absorb the risk into the overall cost.

Market behavior gets weird when demand is inelastic.

If, in light of all of the above, you still want to nerf jump logistics, my recommendation is to increase the cost per m3 moved without touching either the up-front costs of JF logistics (such as cost of JF hulls or build time or training time for skills) or the time spent per unit moved. Obviously increasing the cost per m3 moved is primarily done through fuel costs. I think increasing the up-front costs is bad because it clearly favors the established logistics magnates and prevents easier entry into the market. Not newbee-friendly at all. Also, speaking from long experience, running jump freighters is really boring. The less time your player base spends doing un-fun ****, the better. This is why the proposed nerf to align time was so unpalatable. Cost is one thing -- time spent on boring things is something else.

This is a good argument. Generally we are just unhappy with the state of power projection, the ease of logistics, and the way those things feed into the size of coalitions. JFs themselves are probably a comparatively smaller contributor to this than other caps.

I'm going to wind down JFs to much closer to their current numbers, to avoid creating a lot of additional pain while we look at longer-term adjustments. Thanks for the feedback :)

I ran Goonswarm's jump freighter service for 3 years.

This is a good argument. Generally we are just unhappy with the state of power projection, the ease of logistics, and the way those things feed into the size of coalitions. JFs themselves are probably a comparatively smaller contributor to this than other caps.

I'm going to wind down JFs to much closer to their current numbers, to avoid creating a lot of additional pain while we look at longer-term adjustments. Thanks for the feedback :)

More like you ran it for one year, burnt out in a manner normally reserved for Type II supernovas, and subcontracted it to a handful of dimwitted peons thereafter

This is a good argument. Generally we are just unhappy with the state of power projection, the ease of logistics, and the way those things feed into the size of coalitions.

Little groups in low sec also heavily rely on Jump freighters to get our hulls to our homes.

(What *is* the life expectancy difference between East and West Germany?)

Little groups in low sec also heavily rely on Jump freighters to get our hulls to our homes.

Generally we are just unhappy with the state of power projection, the ease of logistics, and the way those things feed into the size of coalitions.

You've got your cause and effect backwards.

The coalitions are the natural result of dominion sovereignty and the nullsec income model. Power projection and logistics don't create them, they are just a necessary feature of the coalitions. Neither are easy either, both require countless man hours doing painfully boring work. As long as the mechanics demanding the coalitions exist, the demands of power projection and logistics will also exist.

Making them harder doesn't stop people from doing them, it just reduces the number of groups able to compete. Years of increasing difficulty(both due to game mechanics, and to players getting better at their jobs) have reduced the number of groups who can operate at the top level to two. Further difficulty will eventually result in one of these groups cracking and the predicted blue doughnut will become a reality.

As long as number of systems owned translates directly into income, large sprawling coalitions must exist. The only effect difficulty has on things is how many disparate groups are able to exist.

The answer to the coalitions is to eliminate their necessity by fixing the sovereignty and income mechanics that demand their existence. They are already an enormous amount of work to maintain, all that is needed to break them up is to change the mechanics that require them to exist.

More like you ran it for one year, burnt out in a manner normally reserved for Type II supernovas, and subcontracted it to a handful of dimwitted peons thereafter

He burned so bright all the chairs in 3 LY radius spontaneously exploded