Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 40 post(s) |
Rust Connor
Industrias PapaCapim
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 12:32:00 -
[211] - Quote
Did some math and test on SiSi. NOTE: all number and analysis are based on the fact that test server cost values are close to tranquility. Data from new crest endpoint and actual testing. Hope math is right, did it on a traffic jam......
TL;DR: staking arrays on pos are insignificant. New skill may be too.
Cenario: 3 hisec system close to a big trade hub with very distinct install cost (manufacturing): System A (Itamo): 10% * base product System B (New Caldari): 2.7% * base product System C (Obanen): 0.1% * base product
You want people to move to C type of systems, right? Nice, but if you are building 1B on products / day it will take years to justify the costs of an extra array.
Math (For System C ): 1 equipment array = 1B * 0.0995% = 995k 2 equipment arrays = 1B * 0.099% = 990k Would you invest 30M for an 5k per day economy (over 15 years to get 30M)?
Math (For System B): 1 equipment array = 1B * 2.6865% = 26.865M 2 equipment arrays = 1B * 2.673% = 26.730M Would you invest 30M for an 135k per day economy (over 200days to get 30M)?
Note: I didn't even consider multiple runs effect so it's even worse....
I don't know what you plan to do with the skill, but it'll have the same effect because there are space with very low install costs and we dont need further reduction. Even if you spend 10B/day you wont need extra arrays if you are in a good system.
People would be amazed by how many systems are like C. I didn't have time to compile all data, but right now there are over 1000 systems on Empire Space (hisec and lowsec) that are equal OR BETTER than System C (best hisec I found has 0.0834% install cost). Around 800 systems are worse than C. System A is an outlier as it is the WORST system for manufacture right now.
Conclusion: Give arrays a better bonus! Remove skill and give us our points back. =) Arrays: extra X ME/array? Or bigger bonus. People with POS will move to systems like C. System like B will be for people that produce on npc stations do i think is safe to double current bonus.... Material Efficiency skill: someone suggested a bonus for teams... not a bad idea?
|
Drak d'Amral
Pandora Developments Boese Onkels
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 07:47:00 -
[212] - Quote
Hello everyone
i was yesterday on the testserver to play with the new industry-UI on POS, now i have a few questions
to get the bonus for multiple structures on a pos, i need to set up more than 1 lab (for example), thats fine and usfull
but now, why i need to move all the stuff around from lab to assambly array for example to build? are the the job costs calculated per lab or per pos? if they are calculatet per lab/assambly array, why?
is it usefull to make it possible that you can set up a corporate hangar and build from that?
so that the pos works more like a station, so that i also can set up a personal hangar and build out from it, and don't have a need for posrights?
if you make it like that, so its not nessesary to give the labs / Assambly arrays any cargo space, the only set up the ability and the bonus for the hole pos-construct, what you can make!
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2415
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 10:06:00 -
[213] - Quote
Rust Connor wrote:Did some math and test on SiSi. NOTE: all number and analysis are based on the fact that test server cost values are close to tranquility. Data from new crest endpoint and actual testing. Hope math is right, did it on a traffic jam......
TL;DR: staking arrays on pos are insignificant. New skill may be too.
Cenario: 3 hisec system close to a big trade hub with very distinct install cost (manufacturing): System A (Itamo): 10% * base product System B (New Caldari): 2.7% * base product System C (Obanen): 0.1% * base product
You want people to move to C type of systems, right? Nice, but if you are building 1B on products / day it will take years to justify the costs of an extra array.
Math (For System C ): 1 equipment array = 1B * 0.0995% = 995k 2 equipment arrays = 1B * 0.099% = 990k Would you invest 30M for an 5k per day economy (over 15 years to get 30M)?
Math (For System B): 1 equipment array = 1B * 2.6865% = 26.865M 2 equipment arrays = 1B * 2.673% = 26.730M Would you invest 30M for an 135k per day economy (over 200days to get 30M)?
Note: I didn't even consider multiple runs effect so it's even worse....
I don't know what you plan to do with the skill, but it'll have the same effect because there are space with very low install costs and we dont need further reduction. Even if you spend 10B/day you wont need extra arrays if you are in a good system.
People would be amazed by how many systems are like C. I didn't have time to compile all data, but right now there are over 1000 systems on Empire Space (hisec and lowsec) that are equal OR BETTER than System C (best hisec I found has 0.0834% install cost). Around 800 systems are worse than C. System A is an outlier as it is the WORST system for manufacture right now.
Conclusion: Give arrays a better bonus! Remove skill and give us our points back. =) Arrays: extra X ME/array? Or bigger bonus. People with POS will move to systems like C. System like B will be for people that produce on npc stations do i think is safe to double current bonus.... Material Efficiency skill: someone suggested a bonus for teams... not a bad idea?
It's not hugely surprising to me that the effect is relatively small, it's not supposed to be particularly powerful :) We want to see how player behavior shakes out in practice before we change things further, but it's something we need to keep an eye on after release, yes. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3499
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 11:21:00 -
[214] - Quote
Rust Connor wrote: Math (For System C ): 1 equipment array = 1B * 0.0995% = 995k 2 equipment arrays = 1B * 0.099% = 990k Would you invest 30M for an 5k per day economy (over 15 years to get 30M)?
Math (For System B): 1 equipment array = 1B * 2.6865% = 26.865M 2 equipment arrays = 1B * 2.673% = 26.730M Would you invest 30M for an 135k per day economy (over 200days to get 30M)?
Welcome to why many of us see T2 BPOs as a bad investment And that's before the coming changes. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3649
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 22:18:00 -
[215] - Quote
Rust Connor wrote:People would be amazed by how many systems are like C. I didn't have time to compile all data, but right now there are over 1000 systems on Empire Space (hisec and lowsec) that are equal OR BETTER than System C (best hisec I found has 0.0834% install cost). Around 800 systems are worse than C. System A is an outlier as it is the WORST system for manufacture right now.
I'm sure they would be, what people don't seem to get with regards to large cost advantages elsewhere (mainly nullsec) is that the nature of nullsec means industry there will still be concentrated by necessity and thus may actually wind up having higher base costs before & even after multipliers come into play, whereas there are hundreds of systems in highsec that currently see little to use for production because there's no reason, no advantage, to go and build there. It's going to be very interesting to see how the costs in nullsec vs highsec actually wind up settling out as a result. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
610
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 08:08:00 -
[216] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Rust Connor wrote:People would be amazed by how many systems are like C. I didn't have time to compile all data, but right now there are over 1000 systems on Empire Space (hisec and lowsec) that are equal OR BETTER than System C (best hisec I found has 0.0834% install cost). Around 800 systems are worse than C. System A is an outlier as it is the WORST system for manufacture right now. I'm sure they would be, what people don't seem to get with regards to large cost advantages elsewhere (mainly nullsec) is that the nature of nullsec means industry there will still be concentrated by necessity and thus may actually wind up having higher base costs before & even after multipliers come into play, whereas there are hundreds of systems in highsec that currently see little to use for production because there's no reason, no advantage, to go and build there. It's going to be very interesting to see how the costs in nullsec vs highsec actually wind up settling out as a result.
There's also little reason to go there after the patch. Your gained profits are either consumed by the transport cost or die on the way to gankers. |
KanashiiKami
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 09:34:00 -
[217] - Quote
i said this in another thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4775223#post4775223
re POS.
there should be a limiting mechanism in place. maybe the limit scales with level to operate anchoring. anchor 5, max deployable 3 POS etc
an alliance of 1000 pilots can deploy 1000 POS in a 1000 moon system so can a single pilot who converted alot of cash into ISK
WUT ??? |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
117
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 15:50:00 -
[218] - Quote
I tried out the new mobile refinery at a POS in hisec. Some observations:
1. Thank you for giving it a base 52% instead of the base 50% of an NPC station. Between that, lower taxes, and the option to put it in a low-volume system guaranteed to have low install costs, this could give some real advantage to refining at a POS as opposed to refining at an NPC station. However, the POS structure is currently not taking skills into account, which means it will never be anywhere remotely useful in empire space. I believe that skills are supposed to be taken into account before release day, but can someone confirm?
2. Currently, when refining in an NPC station, you select "Reprocess" on the material in question and a window opens up that gives you lots of useful information, including your yield, and how your yield is calculated. When refining in a POS structure, you select "Reprocess" on the material in question and it immediately refines without giving you any of the information. Can you please add this chunk of UI from NPC stations to the POS refinery structures? It'd be nice to know what I'm getting before I get it, not to mention how my skills are applying.
3. Currently you have to be within 3000m of a refinery structure to use it, even though you can access it's contents from much further away. Is this intended? It'd be really nice if the "access" and "use" ranges were the same.
Thanks for the work CCP. I'm really looking forward to these changes. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
Blue Harrier
167
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 21:44:00 -
[219] - Quote
I can answer your question 2 as I asked the same myself and it seems the code for a POS is both old and so convoluted if the UI was added it would cause grown men and women to cry and all POSGÇÖs in the game to implode and vanish in a puff of pixels.
So for the time being no it wonGÇÖt be added.
"You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982. |
Smugest Sniper
Salient Logistics Inc. Northern Associates.
17
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 19:58:00 -
[220] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Rust Connor wrote:People would be amazed by how many systems are like C. I didn't have time to compile all data, but right now there are over 1000 systems on Empire Space (hisec and lowsec) that are equal OR BETTER than System C (best hisec I found has 0.0834% install cost). Around 800 systems are worse than C. System A is an outlier as it is the WORST system for manufacture right now. I'm sure they would be, what people don't seem to get with regards to large cost advantages elsewhere (mainly nullsec) is that the nature of nullsec means industry there will still be concentrated by necessity and thus may actually wind up having higher base costs before & even after multipliers come into play, whereas there are hundreds of systems in highsec that currently see little to use for production because there's no reason, no advantage, to go and build there. It's going to be very interesting to see how the costs in nullsec vs highsec actually wind up settling out as a result.
Actually as a Indy operator in null for years this is not going to be as much an issue as presumed.
Almost all renter space is free and open, granted Market hubs will be crowded, but people with large jump capacities and production in more islolated locations will make this a non-factor for most of the industry done in null and high-sec.
Production will see a spreading effect, with perhaps a few leeches here and there on big indy groups who buy a team in high-sec.
If you are doing indy in null you want 3 core factors.
-Isolation and safety -Resource availability -ease of access to market points.
Null will have more of this than anywhere else in game.
SoV is generally secure, there are many unused systems, and with jump ships you can deliver goods with relative ease.
Production facilities can be put anywhere, in fact i wonder how much this will affect the Providence region in terms of spreading manufacturing capacity and cost. I could build a PoS on a barren moon in a pipe system, load it with manufacturing mods(or not), and **** out capitals or what ever I want at the lowest possible cost.
So if this just so happens to be 1 jump from my target market, so much the better for me. or one Carrier etc load from my target market it's irrelevant.
Logistics is now going to become even more crucial and demanded as a service. I foresee a big demand for people wanting to build Manufacturing stations in null, coupled with courier services on an alliance level.
Also Mynna do you want a copy of the indy mail I'm working on and have mentioned on the SA thread :3
E: as to the safety in non concentrated areas if you recall an area in outer passage where my former corp put 250km of bubbles on the in-gate and sat off around 150 with sniper rohks and maelstroms, you can make any dead end pocket very very very unattractive for invaders to **** with.
That's all we need as to the whole industrial corps taking care of themselves. |
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
124
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 20:03:00 -
[221] - Quote
Blue Harrier wrote:I can answer your question 2 as I asked the same myself and it seems the code for a POS is both old and so convoluted if the UI was added it would cause grown men and women to cry and all POSGÇÖs in the game to implode and vanish in a puff of pixels.
So for the time being no it wonGÇÖt be added.
Yeah, I saw that. I'm pretty disappointed. I'm just amazed that the POS code is so bad that they can't add the new UI for reprocessing, but it isn't so bad that they can't add the new UI for research and production. Seems like a convenient scapegoat to me. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
Velicitia
Arma Artificer
2405
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 10:52:00 -
[222] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Blue Harrier wrote:I can answer your question 2 as I asked the same myself and it seems the code for a POS is both old and so convoluted if the UI was added it would cause grown men and women to cry and all POSGÇÖs in the game to implode and vanish in a puff of pixels.
So for the time being no it wonGÇÖt be added.
Yeah, I saw that. I'm pretty disappointed. I'm just amazed that the POS code is so bad that they can't add the new UI for reprocessing, but it isn't so bad that they can't add the new UI for research and production. Seems like a convenient scapegoat to me.
probably has more to do with "POS refining worked completely different to station refining" than anything
For all intents and purposes, POS and station mfg/research work exactly the same, and already had the same UI ... One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2420
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 11:43:00 -
[223] - Quote
Hi everyone,
Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.
We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.
Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself
The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.
We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)
Thanks for all your feedback, -Greyscale |
|
Calvin
Israeli Space Corporation
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 12:13:00 -
[224] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.
"limited upsides"? This feature is what was going to make production in a starbase worthwhile for me. Now I don't see a reason to produce in a starbase much at all, as the bonuses are now something of a joke.
|
Scout Vyvorant
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 12:22:00 -
[225] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.
We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.
Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself
The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.
We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)
Thanks for all your feedback, -Greyscale
Why don't you create a structure that does nothing by itself but just give the bonus intended for the multiple structures?
Make two types, one for research/invention and one for manufactoring, and create a small, medium and large variant scaling the bonus in the same way the pos fuel is scaled, meaning a large one give -24, a medium -12 and a small -6. That is easier than nerfing the online cost of the existing structures.
In this way you have to choose between being cost effictive or weaponized, and choosing is at core of this patch |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
358
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 12:24:00 -
[226] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone, The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.
So you expect us to reconfigure set ups for Crius and then again in a couple of months when you change fittings?
I'd have thought arming towers was something to encourage as it promotes player interaction. The alternative route is a small tower that comes down at the first sign of trouble - not much fun for either the attacker or tower owner in that.
As has been previously pointed out attacking ships have had multiple buffs in recent years but defences have remained unchanged so unless you plan to make a POS defences balance pass it seems a litlee mean to deny them the crumb of needing fewer labs etc.
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone, We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)
What about the glut of large and especially medium towers that you have just massively reduced the demand for? Fear God and Thread Nought |
Talon Kadin
Cold Station 12 Surely You're Joking
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 13:09:00 -
[227] - Quote
Well its a damn good thing tower defenses are so useful in this game, makes perfect sense to me
/s |
Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
91
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 13:22:00 -
[228] - Quote
Okay, so we wanted scaling to be in an interesting and reasonable manner.
Small tower: Light industry, light defenses, light bonus
Large tower: Light industry, other modules, medium defenses OR Large tower: heavy industry, great bonuses, poor defenses OR Large tower: Light industry, heavy defenses
By removing these stacking bonuses, the light/heavy industry option is gone. The whole point of these bonuses were to make up for the lack of slots - you've killed that.
To consider raising the fitting costs only then inhibits the choices within tower fittings too. If someone wants to do some industry, they have to cut out a lot of other stuff and/or be limited in concurrent industry options rather than having a fitting choice.
Seriously, just cutting your losses, claiming the bonuses would be too difficult to show in the new UI (really???) and thinking the best course of action is to just drop everything and go "we tried" is dismal. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1283
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 14:03:00 -
[229] - Quote
What exactly is the problem in having a heavily armed indy tower? Especially when you're paying an extra 500m a month for the privilege. POS defenses are already woefully under powered. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
80
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 14:17:00 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.
We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.
Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself
The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.
We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)
Thanks for all your feedback, -Greyscale
Heaven forbid an industry POS that has BPOs in it should not be able to increase its defenses. Because you know, POS defenses are so stellar anyway. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1467
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 14:30:00 -
[231] - Quote
there goes my pos structure business :( GRRR Goons |
Olari Vanderfall
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 14:32:00 -
[232] - Quote
Amazing. At least I won't have to figure out what to put in my POS. All that extra time saved will be useful for when I need to unlock and move thousands of bpos to a system with a research station. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2424
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 14:54:00 -
[233] - Quote
Jackie Fisher wrote: What about the glut of large and especially medium towers that you have just massively reduced the demand for?
Reasonable question, we will look into this also. Towers have the relative advantage though that there are other things you can use them for, whereas a lab is just a lab.
Kenneth Skybound wrote:Okay, so we wanted scaling to be in an interesting and reasonable manner.
Small tower: Light industry, light defenses, light bonus
Large tower: Light industry, other modules, medium defenses OR Large tower: heavy industry, great bonuses, poor defenses OR Large tower: Light industry, heavy defenses
By removing these stacking bonuses, the light/heavy industry option is gone. The whole point of these bonuses were to make up for the lack of slots - you've killed that.
To consider raising the fitting costs only then inhibits the choices within tower fittings too. If someone wants to do some industry, they have to cut out a lot of other stuff and/or be limited in concurrent industry options rather than having a fitting choice.
Seriously, just cutting your losses, claiming the bonuses would be too difficult to show in the new UI (really???) and thinking the best course of action is to just drop everything and go "we tried" is dismal.
There is no lack of slots, we killed those too. The reason we're considering revising industry structure fittings is to have more interesting choices, not fewer - do you put your labs and your build arrays on the same tower, or split them up so each can be better defended?
As to UI; no, not remotely related to the decision. We already have the UI for the bonuses working perfectly (it's a fairly trivial bit of work in the current structure). The problem we have is with user-friendliness, which in this case is manifested in the fact that we've not found a performant way to have industry know about offline/online states at a granularity of less than an hour, and having actions silently delayed for up to an hour is not a good user experience. |
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 14:58:00 -
[234] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.
We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.
Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself
The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.
We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)
Thanks for all your feedback, -Greyscale
Since when is having a properly defended tower a bad thing? |
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
319
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 15:03:00 -
[235] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups. As the owner of a small Minmatar control tower, please take it easy here. One corp hangar, starship maint array, one lab, one ammo assembly array (for fuel), 2 hardeners and 4 small turrets and I'm already about maxed out. That's a pretty basic outpost. I was hoping to squeeze in a compression array after Crius. But if you go mucking about with the fitting requirements, us small-timers are going to be hosed. Tread carefully. |
Rekkr Nordgard
Imperial Reclaiming
398
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 15:05:00 -
[236] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.
We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.
Classic CCP; announce features A, B, and C which are designed to work in conjunction with each other, feature B is a poorly thought out bad idea and the players complain, but instead of fixing feature B, CCP simply scraps it entirely while moving ahead with A and C making the whole thing completely unbalanced now.
I'm glad CCP killed the stacking POS module bonus; it was simply awful game design, it should work like rigs or POCO construction where you have to add addition materials to a single POS module to upgrade its capacity and gain bonuses. But eliminating industrial POS bonuses entirely while moving ahead with the rest of features is almost even worse and even more unbalancing to an expansion already aimed at hurting highsec industry while buffing sov nullsec industry.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
124
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 15:25:00 -
[237] - Quote
When the new starbase changes were first announced, I was understandably excited about the prospect of vast swaths of hisec opening up for new POS users, setting up my own starbase without having to grind faction standings or buy an occupied moon, and doing some production/research. I even took the time to buy all of the equipment for a POS (and some fuel), pick a nice system to put one up in, and staged all of the equipment/fuel to be ready when Crius goes live.
Sadly though, between this latest announcement (both the loss of structure bonuses and the threat of increased lab/assembly array fitting) and the fact that the POS refinery UI will still be broken after Crius goes live, I've nearly given up on my planned entry into the realm of POSes because I just don't see it as being worth the time and effort.
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1285
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 15:26:00 -
[238] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:The reason we're considering revising industry structure fittings is to have more interesting choices, not fewer - do you put your labs and your build arrays on the same tower, or split them up so each can be better defended?
I'm afraid that "Interesting choices" is something I'm always extremely wary of when coming from CCP.
It usually comes along with artificially forcing debilitating penalties... like freighter hull upgrades, which nerf the very thing a freighter is designed for, but are necessary just to get you back to something reasonable.
A POS tower should be defended, and heavily, the notion that you can just take your things out is absolute nonsense. BPOs sure, but what about anything which is already building? There is no way to evacuate that short of pressing the cancel button and losing everything you put into it, and I'd hardly call that an evacuation.
A high value POS tower is not like a high-value ship, like a supercarrier, even though they may quite easily be comparable in value. A tower is constantly exposed, night and day, any timezone. Your suggestion is to force more value into them, and then make it even harder to fit defenses on? ... and don't even get me started on the mess of things like lock-downs and corporate roles.
Come the indy changes, every POS tower should be armed to the teeth, and rightly so. Hitting a major industrial complex should be a massive undertaking, with significant risk associated with it. The owner of the POS is already taking a huge risk using it; the destruction of a POS can potentially lose billions or even tens of billions when existing jobs are aborted.
"I'm going to base my factory in Baghdad, but once I've finished buying the machinery, I'll just have to go without hiring any guards because ~arbitrary limit~" -- Said nobody ever. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
743
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 15:31:00 -
[239] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.
Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Sigras
Conglomo
817
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 15:33:00 -
[240] - Quote
the ROI on POS modules does seem a bit poor...
its probably a bit out of scope now, but a while ago i posted a suggestion that allows corps to grow the number of arrays organically as they can now; it also fixes the online/offline problem...
Give all POS arrays a 10% reduction to job cost then make the job 1% more expensive per job in that array.
the obvious FOO strategy is one array per job of that type you want to run, but this runs into CPU issues and requires more shuffling around of materials, so you have tradeoffs.
the other idea i had was to give each type of array a "job cost reducer" module with a long-ish online time to prevent online/offline shenanigans
the added advantage to this approach is that you can make it cost appropriate so the ROI isnt insane and youre not messing with assembly array's online timers...
thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |