Hello people,

New corporations have to wait 7 days before anchoring Control Towers

What is the intended purpose for this?

It's to provide a waiting time when receiving a war declaration before forming a new corporation and moving all the Starbase assets there.

Any smart High Sec Player will already have ALTS in other 1 man Corps. With small towers put up in dead end systems with 100+ Moons with less then 200 jumps/day.

Hell, I already have 5 ALT Corps, each in their own Corp, logged out at the Moons I want.

- Recieve Wardec
- Drop Corp/Remove tower
- Move toons to new Corp
- ???
- Profit!

It's to provide a waiting time when receiving a war declaration before forming a new corporation and moving all the Starbase assets there.

Looks like the (hisec) Repro Array is misbehaving.


Skills --> 5/5/5 Refining, Refinery Efficiency, Veldspar Processing
Batch --> 1 x veldspar (100 units)
Edit -- oh, have the 4% implant too.

POS Result -- 215
Raw Spreadsheet Result (POS) -- 311.25

For reference, stations seem to be OK:
Tax --> 5% (as listed in game -- standings actually bring this down to approximately 3% based on real losses)
Overall -> "70% yield" in station, according to ingame repro window

Station Result -- 289
Raw Spreadsheet Result (Station) -- 289.67

Please don't remove remote BP usage. We're relying on that feature a lot.

Two most frequent usecases: Many of us have various alts doing some location-specific jobs, which are also doing remote R&D and manufacturing (alt utilization index, if you're like that)

Second, when we're pewpewing in one end of the region, we're using this method to cycle jobs at the industry location, which avoids having to traving back and forth always.

Forcing us to travel always for 5 minute work is boring, introducing a lot of pain, and just kills the mood.

We should be doing whatever is fun, and not having to deal with yet another kind of pain in the game.

So far I see indicator on UI telling me my controll range and showing skills affecting it, so it should work.

What is being remowed is the ability to run job using a BPO/BPC that is on a station in a POS manufacturing / research facility

So far I see indicator on UI telling me my controll range and showing skills affecting it, so it should work.

What is being remowed is the ability to run job using a BPO/BPC that is on a station in a POS manufacturing / research facility

That was my reading of it too. I'm not re-activated on sisi yet so cannot confirm. (Hauling a POS to my region of choice - due to my standings - is going to be a pain though.)

The main thing about the blueprints should have been the need to leave one at the POS. Now I agree this would be a concern, except the main stations no longer have bottlenecks (other than increased costs) for copies.

So the only initial concern will be if/when you do initial research of a BPO at the POS (for reduced time). The rest of the time the BPO sits at home, making copies for the POS to use.

Regarding wardecs, my last corp (the one I was involved with before leaving the game) had the 'stop you from hitting me' version of a deathstar configuration (its in-game name gets censored ). It was surprisingly effective - after a protracted stalemate, they (mercs) eventually negotiated to have us gracefully take down the tower, so their contract was fulfilled. They even helped rep it the next day.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of out-of-the-way highsec moons will be available after this. Combine this with a little-used region and you'll have a decent start.

You might notice something else too.

You can start jobs in facilities where you have a blueprint. regardless of region, as long as they're in range.

The stacking material reduction on pos arrays is amazing, it adds a dynamic that is going to make it absolutely worthwhile to build at a pos instead of out of a station, though I wonder if it is currently too good to be true. Any word on what the stacking limit will be like on pos modules? 4 of the same type or something?

You mean that, even if I am in Domain, I can still start jobs in Tash-Murkon or Kador as long as it is within the range the Scientific Networking skill allows me to start jobs?

Yes.

You sure that's not on the cost of putting a job in, rather than material cost? (my pos is still onlining)

Edit: Checking on the other forum topic, yes, it's build cost. Not materials.

There's something very funky going on with material cost then heh.

The stacking material reduction on pos arrays is amazing, it adds a dynamic that is going to make it absolutely worthwhile to build at a pos instead of out of a station, though I wonder if it is currently too good to be true. Any word on what the stacking limit will be like on pos modules? 4 of the same type or something?

No example needed. Just checked it myself. yes, there's something funky going on there.

I've tried it in an array with 5 others anchored and online, getting 25% discount. However, with them put offline, I get the same numbers, so it looks like something else. (I can't actually submit the job, as it throws an error, but I beleive that's known)

I don't see the previously discussed low sec focused array for capital ships. Is that still in development or did I miss a post?

thanks

Can you find the source of this? I hadn't heard any concrete evidence that they were going to add one.

No example needed. Just checked it myself. yes, there's something funky going on there.

I've tried it in an array with 5 others anchored and online, getting 25% discount. However, with them put offline, I get the same numbers, so it looks like something else. (I can't actually submit the job, as it throws an error, but I beleive that's known)

Does this also work now for Marketing and Daytrade?

Whats the advantage because Pos or Station Producing / Reasearch for the Holders of the Station in 0.0? So the holders are not able to limit the usage or place some Tax for the Corp on the Reasearch / Production slots?

Yes indeed, Reprocessing Arrays aren't taking skills into account yet.

You will be able to tax industry jobs in player outposts, we just need to add the bit of UI for configuring the tax rate.

Apologies if this is answered already, I'm a page behind.

Will we have the ability to set the tax rate on job install costs at POS's as well? I'm not sure if that just applied to outposts or not.

Would REALLY like to have this

It's the Thukker component array. On the market

\o/
I had no intention of training Starbase Defense Management because of the level5 Anchoring prerequisite.

Thank you for changing it to level4. Although I guess it depends on which side of the POS shield you're sitting on...

It's to provide a waiting time when receiving a war declaration before forming a new corporation and moving all the Starbase assets there.

Tax rate at a POS makes no sense, since you can only install corporation jobs that get paid from the corporation wallet, you would only be taxing yourself.

Tax rate at a POS makes no sense, since you can only install corporation jobs that get paid from the corporation wallet, you would only be taxing yourself.

Personal jobs at a POS may come with a POS rework in the future.

If the tax is taken from one wallet and put into another it DOES make sense. Eg, industry guys putting money into the master wallet, through tax, to help pay their bit for the fuel.

A little disappointed with the following; I set up a POS (first one ever) and installed a Compression Array and a Reprocessing Array to test how they work.

Took some Veldspar ore to the compressor and it compressed instantly (after working out the none intuitive drag/drop/must get closer to activate storage). Carted the compressed ore back to a station to reprocess it and was presented with a very easy to use double window with tool tips explaining what skills were giving what bonuses, amount lost, amount as tax etc, loved it.

The next batch I dropped into the reprocessing array at the pos, right clicked, select reprocess, and done.... What the heck no window giving details, nothing.

So is this something in the pipeline or do we have to endure this none intuitive basic window thing?

It's to provide a waiting time when receiving a war declaration before forming a new corporation and moving all the Starbase assets there.

I will talk about this use case with the team. Thanks for the feedback.

So? I'd imagine any corp worth their salt has one or even more holding alts in separate one-man corporations. Pointless limitation is pointless.

Sounds like to much of an edge case to me

It's not really that much of an edge case. In current terms, it'd be done by putting an actual cost on starbase line usage, having the indie guys have access to say wallet 7, they put in the money for their job only (so nothing to be stolen) and the line is paid for, dumping into master wallet.

Part of the reason this is not so commonly done currently is the effort required to get a pos up and relative lack of benefits to the small fry industrialist to work out of a corp POS.

With the tax able to be set to zero anyway, the fact that some people would used it, even at your "edge case" derision, means that it is somewhat worthwhile implementing as it would have no negative effect on those who don't use the taxation.

POS is a corp asset, industry is a player activity. There's got to be some upward income to (help) pay for the starbase.

Having one part of your corporation able to tax another part of it is actually incredibly useful for implementing separation of duties within a corporation.

For example, under the current system you can nominate your starbase maintenance team to use the master wallet for all starbase expenses. The starbase team then sets their desired slot fees based on running costs of the starbase.

A different wallet division is set up for use by the blueprint copying team. The blueprint copying team places their jobs into the starbase lab arrays, and the appropriate slot fees are automatically deducted from the blueprint copying wallet division and paid into the master wallet division.

When the starbase maintenance team needs to buy more fuel, they are able to use the slot fees that have accumulated in the master wallet to do so. It is then very easy to see whether the takings are sufficient to run the starbase or not, and to manage the funding of the starbase separately from the profitability of the blueprint copying.

Without the ability to set taxes at a starbase, maintaining this separation of duties would require a significant amount of manual accounting work to calculate the appropriate apportionment of starbase operating costs and manually transfer the appropriate amounts of ISK between wallet divisions.

If the tax is taken from one wallet and put into another it DOES make sense. Eg, industry guys putting money into the master wallet, through tax, to help pay their bit for the fuel.

Dude, they aren't paying from their personal wallet. The fees come out of the corp wallet.

So what that they have alts in there? does those alt can do industry? Maybe some do but than again those would be with the poses already setted up. Otherwise when You escape from war You cant just apply with Your industry guys to Your other corp due to war cool-down (you cant join other corp if you felt corp during war for a week or two - cant remember exactly)

"Indy Corp A" has a corp hangar in station designated for lockeddown BPOs and a POS for copying and research in the same system

Members of "Indy Corp A" are able to utilize this BPO library for copy jobs, as well as to contribute to ME/PE (now called ML, TL) research to benefit the collective library using the facilities on the POS, this is in fact one of the largest draws for being part of "Indy Corp A" as the corporation has amassed a tens-of-billions of ISK blueprint collection, far beyond the capabilities of any single one of its members.

Following the Cirius patch, members of "Indy Corp A" will no longer be able to do copying or research in the POS without the blueprints becoming unlocked and moved to the POS, and therefore vulnerable to the theft the lockdown system currently prevents. They can still build off the BPOs if the station the BPOs are held in has manufacturing facilities, but they are unable to make copies and then produce goods in a different location of their choosing if the system is overcrowded or unable to build the goods in question.

In regards to the changes to blueprints not being able to be researched, copied, or manufactured from a station in a POS, how do you foresee corps that had offered a shared locked blueprint pool to their membership operating moving forward?

The ones that don't trust their members or are unable to defend their POS will simply research and copy in (now slotless) NPC stations.

Blueprint access rights are less of a problem with industry itself and more to do with corp roles + POSes which if you saw our roadmap from Fanfest you will know is next on our radar to look at.

The ones that don't trust their members or are unable to defend their POS will simply research and copy in (now slotless) NPC stations.

I think you're deliberately confusing a small indy corp with a nullsec alliance or RvB.

The notion of defending a POS is nonsense - If it's online, and armed, then the only groups liable to attack it are those with sufficiently overwhelming force that it's reinforced within half an hour.

That RF can take place at ANY time of the day.

Are you seriously suggesting that to take advantage of researching in POS towers that small indy corps now need enough members to put up an around-the-clock defensive fleet?

What about smaller still, one or two man corps that use industry to fund other things, like PvP? Is it a case of:

"Hey, sorry. We here at CCP think that EVE is serious business and you can forget about that spontaneous weekend trip away with your wife because when you get back your BPOs are all gone."

To work from a BPO you only need "query" access to it. put your BPOs into a devision your minions don't have take access to and your BPOs should be save. Accept from director level theft. Its not as save as lock down but should work for some cases.

but like I said, small corps will just use NPC stations.

Fair enough, but to get the point home... can one of the database guys tell us how big your average indy corp (those running > 100 jobs per month) is?

I'm guessing it's about... 10.

These particular changes just leave me with a very bad taste in my mouth. They remind me of when CCP decided to remove higher-end anomalies from 90% of nullsec and kidney-punched every small nullsec alliance out there.

...but like I said, small corps will just use NPC stations. With the removal of slots and system wide cost scaling this isn't as big a deal as it used to be with slot constraints.

Those that want to take the risk, enjoy the POS bonuses. The choice is yours.

Just ran the numbers on this, it's actually higher than you think.

Aww

Well, at least you're aware then .

Any timeline for kicking the POS code into behaving ... or just "soon(tm)"?

(updated copy of a post I made in the reprocessing feedback thread)

Compression Array Attributes
Three entries that may be obsolete/wrong

Refining Yield Multiplier (0.55x), Operational Duration (10.00s) and Restricted to Security Level Less Than (1)

Multiplier is x 0.52 in case the attribute is used that way. Reprocessing is instant. I Successfully anchored/put online Reprocessing and Compression Arrays in Pator, which is true 1.0.

Tower Anchoring
I also anchor a tower in Lustrevik which is one of the restricted systems, at least for PI.

POS code is creepy and messy. Do not speak of it.

I'm willing to forgive the lack of interface or massive updating surrounding POS's in the knowledge that their overhaul is actually in the pipeline and that wasting time on it now is probably not best idea.

I may have missed a detail or two, but isn't there going to be a problem with the number of available office slots at stations with research?

Currently a small corp uses a POS for research because of limited station research slots, and can locate their office at any station in the system. If those corps move their research from POS to station post-Crius, it seems to me they will have to locate their office at a station that has research. And because of system-wide cost scaling, there seems to be little incentive to manufacture at stations without research. Which would seem to lead everyone to congregate at the research stations, which would then lead to high office rent at those stations. This might make it very expensive to run corporation research jobs.

A large corporation doing research may have no problem with high office rent. An individual doing research doesn't need to rent an office. But a small corporation which does need a corporation hangar for blueprint research may find the office cost difficult to bear. Are there any planned changes to the number of available offices and/or the rent structure? And if office rent will not be an issue, why will anyone use a non-research station for industry?

It's to provide a waiting time when receiving a war declaration before forming a new corporation and moving all the Starbase assets there.

I anchored and onlined a couple of Component Assembly Arrays but I can't seem to find them in the list of manufacturing lines. Bug or am I doing something wrong?

This is a very valid concern and something we will keep a close eye on.

Thank for pointing it out, I hadn't seen it referred to in any of the dev posts.

It looks good, but I'd sure like to see it have more capacity then 1m m3

Is their some reason it has to be anchored in a system with less then .4? Should be able to anchor in .1-.4 I would think. (I can't find one to test with) I noticed the intensive array requires less then .449

Additionally there are some low sec systems that are 0.0 security rating. Hophib for example

To illustrate how it would be used (and how I have personally seen it used in the past)

You set up a wallet division called research.

You give the people doing research access to the wallet division research - this means they can put in money when they want to do research.

You set a cost for the research (current process - would be a tax rate under new method).

When someone wants to do research they put the bpo in a lab, they put the isk into the research wallet, they start research.

At present with this arrangement the cost goes into the master wallet, it can then be used to pay for say fuel. What people are suggesting is you should be able to set tax rates on your own pos which would mean the tax part of the cost of a job would go into the master wallet in the same way costs do now.

Thanks for the earlier reply to my other post.

Now a question;
We now have the facility to anchor a POS in high sector space but do I take it we will not be able to harvest moons?

I did try and set up a Moon Harvesting Array but got a long winded message about it had to be in 0.4 or less (I think). The message vanishes far too quickly to read it all and because it has multiple lines itGÇÖs very difficult to read all of it in one go.

The tl;dr: You cannot do moon mining in .4 or higher.

That is it. I hope that one day that changes. I've never been a fan of artificial and/or arbitrary limitations. Then again, it would probably completely crash the moongoo market.

0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.

I'm being stupid for asking this since I think you pretty clearly articulated it above, but are you saying you can run moon mining arrays in 0.4 space? Are other modules (hello reactors) that are currently restricted to 0.3 or lower space also getting the make-over?

(As an aside, I've never put up a POS in 0.4 but seem to remember some game guides indicating charters were required for them. That always seemed weird to me and I wondered if that was actually the case).

Yes and yes. Nothing has changed on the structures themselves, we've just changed the code so "0.4" means "up to 0.4" rather than "below 0.4".

Actually, I hope you changed the code to be " less than 0.45 " IIRC truesec less than 0.45 is rounded down to 0.4 in the game. Correct?

MDD

I'm being stupid for asking this since I think you pretty clearly articulated it above, but are you saying you can run moon mining arrays in 0.4 space? Are other modules (hello reactors) that are currently restricted to 0.3 or lower space also getting the make-over?

I could say "during the next few weeks" but I'm not sure that would help

0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.

1) Are you still going to require Charters for 0.4?
2) Would you please randomize the minerals for those 0.4 moons on patch day to give back the excitement of scanning :)

0.4 does not require charters.

This particular bit of code converts the real security value to a single-place decimal (actually, to a integer representation between -1000 and +1000, but whatever) prior to doing the comparison, rounding the same way that we do for ingame sec display.

0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.

I know this is not related to industry so close, but
one of the most bad thing with the pos system for me now, onlineing many defensive modules like 20-30 modules with 2 min timer, is serious pain.

Need reduced online time for those, or need a queue for pos module actions like online offline unanchor ..
Queue system like skill training, when i can set all the actions i want, and come back after 2 hour, to check te status.

This is something its possible in the future or you guys want rework the whole pos system so wedont expect better handling for the old system?

Thanks for answering that, I've never tried to put a POS in 0.4 because some of the guides mention that starbase charters were required. There seemed to be little reason to put up a POS in a 0.4 given it seemed to have drawbacks of not doing everything a low-sec POS could do (reactions) while simultaneously requiring annoying Hi-Sec widgets to run.

They *USED* to be required. CCP removed that restriction several years ago

Tyrannis
Release date: May 26, 2010

This is a very valid concern and something we will keep a close eye on.

It's to provide a waiting time when receiving a war declaration before forming a new corporation and moving all the Starbase assets there.

To build on this when a certain percentage of players from a corporation under a wardec move to the same corporation the aggressor should get a free war against that corporation with the sorter 4 hour start timer. Mass corp jumpers are one of the bigger and more obvious problems with highsec wars.

I know this is not related to industry so close, but
one of the most bad thing with the pos system for me now, onlineing many defensive modules like 20-30 modules with 2 min timer, is serious pain.

Need reduced online time for those, or need a queue for pos module actions like online offline unanchor ..
Queue system like skill training, when i can set all the actions i want, and come back after 2 hour, to check te status.

This is something its possible in the future or you guys want rework the whole pos system so wedont expect better handling for the old system?

Yes indeed, Reprocessing Arrays aren't taking skills into account yet.

will they take them into account on release?

Yes and yes. Nothing has changed on the structures themselves, we've just changed the code so "0.4" means "up to 0.4" rather than "below 0.4".

Tax rate at a POS makes no sense, since you can only install corporation jobs that get paid from the corporation wallet, you would only be taxing yourself.

There exist small to medium corps that get together for industry. The game mechanics so far have restricted the number of corps doing this; but they do exist.

We charge pilots using other divisions to do their research/industry, with the tax being paid into the master wallet. We use this to subsidize POS fuel;

Eve University apparently does the same.

We were hoping that while industry and corporations were being re-worked; we would get more control.

I understand corp roles are being re-worked next round, but please don't reduce the limited options for tax that I already have.

It's to provide a waiting time when receiving a war declaration before forming a new corporation and moving all the Starbase assets there.

0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.

PL is ruining our game again.

This favoritism must stop NOW!

This is yet another clear example of PL favouritism from CCP. You know full well we can't dip our toes into lowsec without losing a super fleet, and you slap a load more R64's there anyway.

Do you plan on then going back to 50% to keep the current supply/demand ratios the same then?

So does this allow fighter assignment in .4 systems as well?

Greyscale - What does CCP's economics group have to say about this? I'd imagine its been cleared as a good thing for the markets or that the "gameplay" associated with it has an overwhelming benefit.

This...
I would of thought CCP would have known it was used in this method already...

...and the risk is compartmentalized separately to the risks involved in manufacturing changes.

What on earth are you talking about? An increase in goo supply is going to add a hell of a lot to consider with regards to ME changes. The less expensive T2 is, the less relevant each % of ME is with regards to a manufacturers' bottom line.

You don't 'compartmentalized' them differently (quite the term for someone who speaks the Queen's english ) as it serves to flatten the impact of ME advantage choices. Do I buy a team? Do I use a high ME or high run decryptor?

The same is true for TE. The increase in build times in great for introducing more value in TE advantage and the associated choices which were previously undervalued next to ME.

For a highsec POS at least you will get a wardec notice period before being at risk, but like I said, small corps will just use NPC stations. With the removal of slots and system wide cost scaling this isn't as big a deal as it used to be with slot constraints.

Those that want to take the risk, enjoy the POS bonuses. The choice is yours.

Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.

So you agree there is a slight smell in the air?

Reshuffle all the moons in 0.4 as of the Crius release

A land rush by those most connected with the community, those most informed, has already begun. As with the last major moon change, where moon deposits were changed, nobody should know until the change actually hits the server.

I don't follow your logic here. A percentage reduction is a percentage reduction, it seems like it should have the same impact on your profit margin regardless of what the material costs are. Cheaper items will result in smaller absolute profit in the short term, to be sure, but that is a thing that the market should resolve sensibly over time.

Thanks for answering that, I've never tried to put a POS in 0.4 because some of the guides mention that starbase charters were required.

No just for the industry skills.

One real problem from the risk side of things is that the POS ability to defend itself - or rather, be used by a player or group of players to defend itself - is absolutely laughable. Stats on the modules are dated to an era where a dread had less EHP than can be achieved by a well tanked cruiser or battlecruiser these days, not to mention the ridiculous lock times. The UI to actually manage your weapons is pretty bad too, but that's a harder problem to tackle, I suspect. All of that, though, means that "highsec POS users" are another group that would benefit from POS guns not being awful.

I suggest:

• Buff damage numbers a bit, and perhaps damage application numbers.
• Buff Starbase Defense Management to be two arrays per level instead of one.
• Increase scan resolution on weapon batteries by a factor of five and scan resolution on electronic warfare and neuting batteries by a factor of ten. To balance this and maximize the benefit of these changes to manned towers, increase the random lock delay by the same factor.
• Have a look at the stats on neuting batteries. Not relevant to highsec but in theory they should be the best weapon against capitals or supers; in practice, 1k cap is nothing. Alternatively, give us different sizes of neuting batteries - small, medium, large, and extra large.

Do all that and then if a "small corp" or indeed any corp is vigilant with their defense, they'll have the capability to defend their POS. Granted, it'll mean some tradeoffs, fewer labs and arrays if they want to supplement gun batteries with shield hardeners and electronic warfare, but that's as it should be - at least doing so would actually be a viable option.



Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.

A time reduction is not as good as a material reduction. Stuff is done faster, but not cheaper. The profit per unit stays the same. If that profit is eaten up by costs like transportation, things remain unprofitable, no matter how fast you can make them.

Totally agree with mynnna.

PoS defences are joke these days. You can easily take out a fully defended pos in HS these days little more then a small group of BS's with next to no effort.

PoS defensive modules are a poor joke.

+1

A rebalance of POS module stats would not take much work and would sort out a lot of problems with towers.

The cruise missile/torp batteries are useless. The blasters don't have enough optimal range to hit anything. The lock times are too long. The scrams don't actually scram you. The anti-capital weapons don't threaten capitals. The list goes on..

'Structure Cost Scaling'

Otherwise known as onlining multiples of the same array to gain tax bonuses at POSes.

CCP devs seem unwilling to discuss or answer questions on this issue at the comments section of the original announcement and at the latest dev blog comments section. I have been directed here from the 'Blueprints' channel even though I don't think this is the ideal forum.

I and others feel that the proposed method of attaining additional tax bonuses at POSes by anchoring & onlining multiples of the exact same array at POSes is messy and a very bad method. CCP Greyscale still seems very confused as to how it will work in practise and doesn't think offlining the remaining arrays after the job is started is a problem, a pointless exercise, or an alleviation of the intended risk factor. No consideration has been given as to whether the additional arrays will, or can, be unanchored and removed after the job has been set up. In short it's a bodge job wrapped in a pretty bow of massive loopholes.

This idea is apparently being done to protect certain markets. I don't think the POS array or POS tower markets are going to suffer post Crius so there shouldn't be any worries about less arrays at towers or size of towers being deployed. Be sure there will be much more POS destruction with the possibility of expensive BPOs dropping and the disruption & destruction of others markets. This destruction will all have to be replaced.

A far better method would be to introduce new skillbook/s, maybe at 10x skill training if you so wish, to give tax bonuses on jobs at POSes. This lines up with current policy such as making refining/reprocessing something you have to spend significant time skilling into. A proper profession.

Your skillbook suggestion does not address the issue that this bonus is trying to resolve, namely that without it the optimal setup is one of each type of structures and a load of defenses, which is uninteresting.

On that note, how about some way to siege in highsec, allowing dunking large towers without hundreds of man hours? A new flavor of bastion module that couldn't track a stationary bus, for example. Dunno about you but I'd call that interesting!

We're not replying because you're putting words into our mouths and making thinly-veiled insults, which is usually an indicator of an unproductive discussion waiting to happen.

The multi-structure bonus is still being worked through, we are intending to handle the online/offline issues in the coming weeks but we don't have a firm solution yet.

Your skillbook suggestion does not address the issue that this bonus is trying to resolve, namely that without it the optimal setup is one of each type of structures and a load of defenses, which is uninteresting.

The multi-structure bonus is still being worked through, we are intending to handle the online/offline issues in the coming weeks but we don't have a firm solution yet.

So this whole disaster goes live , in what, now 34 days, and you guys are still throwing darts at a wall in design?
Hilarious.

Do everyone a favour, and back the dump of this on TQ until the fall, and give the design process a deadline of say, July 11.
Better still, scrap the whole thing, though I am sure the null sec cartels would scream blue murder at that.

CCP Greyscale, you gotta admit, this mods scaling thing is a pretty inelegant solution to preventing rainbow fits. Here's a thought - why don't you scale the costs based on how many types of arrays there are. Perhaps with a formula like this:

Factor = (1.01) ^ (# array types - 1)

Which gives the following:

1 1.000
2 1.010
3 1.020
4 1.030
5 1.041

Thus, if you want to rainbow up with 5 types of arrays, it costs you 4.1% extra compared to using just 1 type in a pos.

That way, we still don't get any tradeoff between industrial and defensive structures, plus the math could be simpler.

What exactly about what we've proposed do you find inelegant?

Thanks for getting back so quickly!

It's not so much in the "(# arrays) * 2%" formulation - that's simple enough and offers a direct incentive to stack up on one type of array.

Rather, the main discomfort is at the prospect of getting that benefit through offlining mods. I know you've said you're looking at it, just wanted to reiterate that this should not be possible, as it's basically a hack, and like most hacks, fairly inelegant. It's also prone to gaming the system - if I wanted three types of arrays, I'd have 13 of each in the pos, run the first job with 13, offline 12, run the second job with 12, offline 11, and then run the last one with 11 and then offline 10, after which I'd set up the dickstar.

The more subtle issue is with the actual aim of this bonus - it's not that we particularly want 13 of a particular array type, but that we want people to have to make tradeoffs and not go for a rainbow fit. Another idea that directly corresponds to less rainbowing is to cause arrays to require more CPU/PG when multiple types are in the same pos.

And yes, the math could certainly be simpler, where we just do a (# array types) * 1% multiplier to essentially get the same effect. I'd initially started to put in the numbers of each types of array too and the exponential was to prevent things getting out of hand. That issue isn't there for a simpler scaling scenario.

No idea how viable it is, but:

Add a 20 minute online time (but not offline, preferably) to all arrays and labs. Then sure, you can play online/offline shenanigans, but it'd be annoying as hell to do regularly, with large times to do (as you can't online two things at the same time)

On that note, how about some way to siege in highsec, allowing dunking large towers without hundreds of man hours? A new flavor of bastion module that couldn't track a stationary bus, for example. Dunno about you but I'd call that interesting!

Obviously we want to fix it because it is exploitable, but the exploits it creates are pretty minor in the greater scheme of things :)

What exactly about what we've proposed do you find inelegant?

+2

Starbases used to be a real threat to Dreadnoughts and Carriers. Now they struggle to kill cruisers and frigates.

Now, THAT is worrying. If hi-sec POS'es are going to be wardecc'ed and targetted much more frequently for real economic reasons (as opposed to wanton griefing), and if they are not defendable, it will be bad.

....

Please tell me that this is not so? That even if we can't keep our wonderful starbase, we can at least make the attackers bleed? Just a tiny little bit? Please?

Or CCP, you could of course do as mynnna suggested? Give us some means and a reason to defend, when you give people reason to attack? And preferably simultaneously.

About having to anchor a substantial number of identical modules within a POS, in order to obtain a bonus which has nothing to do with having more facilities? Actually, more facilities ought to require more workers, and therefore a higher installation cost, not lower, if you take the lore arguments at face value - more facilities logically would give more slots, but those are being abolished. And to top it off, this substantial number minus 1 may possibly be offlined when jobs have been installed. It sounds downright silly. And have you considered the visuals here: A POS crowded with offline modules of various kinds, 25 of each, worst case? And only one running? Junkyards are the opposite of elegant solutions...

Minimum requirement would IMHO be that all those modules will function as a group, i.e. that you offline all or nothing, while a job is running. That would take care of the on-off problem. Either your job is running as it was started, or it is not.

A far more elegant solution would be to make arrays behave as PI command centers, which can be upgraded to use much more cap and cpu and provide the bonus in return. No clutter at the starbase, no online-offline shenanigans, better lore integration (more automation = less need for workers = cheaper installation). You might even buy the upgrades in the form of extra modules, if you want the production of such modules to not suffer (and if the code won't allow anything else), but the extra modules should "vanish" into the first upon installation (anchoring) and just leave the one facility which is in operation with better stats. I would actually rather see upgrades getting progressively more expensive, not flat, like in most other cases (skill training, modules, whatever).

Maybe the (24+1) identical modules is the only possible solution presently, because the programming code behind it is old and/or bad and can't be remedied. So be it. But it is very much less than elegant. Acknowledge that, and we can move on. And get a grip on the on-off problem fast.

I have been testing the starbase changes on SiSi.

The character that anchored the POS has not changed corp, is still a director in the corp that he anchored the POS for, but could not get into the shield without the password. It used to be that any corp member of the owning corp could get in without a password. When I logged in the autowarp to last location bounced me off the shield to over 100km away.

In my experience only non corp members need the password to access the POS. This character was not only a director in the owning corp, but also the one who anchored and onlined it.

Reprocessing Array improvements

I'm mildly concerned about this only having a capacity of 200k m3. It means that if I have a Freighter-load of ore that I want to refine, I'll have to do it in 5 batches. That seems odd. And the Ore Compression array is much larger, with about 100 times more capacity.

Are you sure it's a good idea to not give the Reprocessing Array a lot more internal volume? Like 10 times as much?

I'm mildly concerned about this only having a capacity of 200k m3. It means that if I have a Freighter-load of ore that I want to refine, I'll have to do it in 5 batches. That seems odd. And the Ore Compression array is much larger, with about 100 times more capacity.

Are you sure it's a good idea to not give the Reprocessing Array a lot more internal volume? Like 10 times as much?

unless you're building in that pos, you will have way more minerals to haul on your return trip to the station so it's sort of a moot point

0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.

Moon harvesters are conformed to work in 0.4 by now :) i allready planted one ind a nearby lowsec system.

unfortunatly the big power blocks already send out there scanners to scan all the 0.4 moons for r32 and r64 mats :(

time to build some syphons.


Drug labs can now also be anchored and onlined in 0.4 systems

i like that not even nulli members consider themselves part of the big power blocks

i dont know if this was posted befor.

I played a little on Sisi and wanted to anchor a pos mod and there was not enough CPU to put it online. So i put a Design lab offline, where several jobs were running. the Lab got offlined and i could online the other pos mod. no thing. after realizing there were jobs in the lab i checked the jobs tab in the industry window. I recognized there is a large X infront of the Status bars now where the time is counting down. I wondered my the counter still counts down and what will haben, if it reaches 0. will the jobs be delivered or do they fail?

to check if the job status changes again, i online the Lab again and the x became a arrow like the play button on media players. will this jobs be finshed normal?

Update:

So i checked my jobs today. The ones from the first offlined and then onlined again Design lab were delivered successful.

now i will check what will happen to the jobs if the lab is offline wenn the counter is 0.

Update 2:

So if the POS Mod goes offline while jobs are running in it, the counter keeps counting down and when it reaches 0 the status freezes and you cannot deliver the job. After onlining the Lab again the job gets reset to to the moment the mod was offlines.

so my job took 8 min i offlines the mod at 4 min and the job got reset to 4 min after onlining again.


Is this behaviour correct or should the job be canceled without being completable at all?