Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 44 post(s) |

Sienna Toth
Pulsar Phisics Shipyards
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 16:16:00 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Rust Connor]Quick look today. Amazing! A few comments
My understanding is that you can only install corp jobs in a starbase, so you're just taxing yourself, which didn't seem worth the development time.
Greyscale: You're correct that we are taxing ourselves, but the tax has a purpose. InGame we have to pay fuel costs. Members of a corp object to paying for features they don't use....Mission Runners and miners don't like to pay for fuel costs unless its in low/null sec or in a wormhole. The 'CURRENT' game allows the assignment of job install costs and cost per hour. Some CEO's/POS Managers will factor the fuel cost per CPU and POWER on the tower and assign charges to the POS module slots based of the amount of fuel consumed. This allows a corp the ability to charge members that use the facilities.
How will I be able to do that when we transition to Crius? |

Qoi
Exert Force
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 18:14:00 -
[92] - Quote
Sienna Toth wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Rust Connor]Quick look today. Amazing! A few comments
My understanding is that you can only install corp jobs in a starbase, so you're just taxing yourself, which didn't seem worth the development time. Greyscale: You're correct that we are taxing ourselves, but the tax has a purpose. InGame we have to pay fuel costs. Members of a corp object to paying for features they don't use....Mission Runners and miners don't like to pay for fuel costs unless its in low/null sec or in a wormhole. The 'CURRENT' game allows the assignment of job install costs and cost per hour. Some CEO's/POS Managers will factor the fuel cost per CPU and POWER on the tower and assign charges to the POS module slots based of the amount of fuel consumed. This allows a corp the ability to charge members that use the facilities. How will I be able to do that when we transition to Crius?
Since the job install costs no longer scale linearly with time and are independent of blueprint, there is no way you could implement a similar system after Crius anyway. You can request the industry jobs from the API instead and then do proper accounting, it is not that hard to set up with some programming experience. |

Sigras
Conglomo
804
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 22:59:00 -
[93] - Quote
Ok, more issues im noticing as I use this system.
I have an ME 10% crystalline carbonide armor plate BPO, and when I show info on it, I see it should take 44 crystalline carbonide and 11 sylramic fibers. This is the same as an ME 0 BPO on TQ, so I thought that the effect of my research was just not being displayed on this screen, but then I looked at an ME 0 BPO and found that it takes 48 crystalline carbonide and 12 symramic fibers...
To add to this confusion, I then attempted to manufacture something with my ME 10% BPO and I found the materials quoted as 30 crystalline carbonide and 8 sylramic fibers.
Is there any reason for this? It seems as though there are some variables being hidden that are messing with the numbers |

Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
74
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 01:34:00 -
[94] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Ok, more issues im noticing as I use this system.
I have an ME 10% crystalline carbonide armor plate BPO, and when I show info on it, I see it should take 44 crystalline carbonide and 11 sylramic fibers. This is the same as an ME 0 BPO on TQ, so I thought that the effect of my research was just not being displayed on this screen, but then I looked at an ME 0 BPO and found that it takes 48 crystalline carbonide and 12 symramic fibers...
To add to this confusion, I then attempted to manufacture something with my ME 10% BPO and I found the materials quoted as 30 crystalline carbonide and 8 sylramic fibers.
Is there any reason for this? It seems as though there are some variables being hidden that are messing with the numbers
He has said like 10000000000 times show info is screwed, use the "Use blueprint" function and see what it says in that window |

DooDoo Gum
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 01:47:00 -
[95] - Quote
Whilst we are getting an industry overhaul, would getting stackable blueprint copies (by me/te) be possible?
This would reduce clutter in any industrialists hanger, and make sorting through the torrents of blueprints a much less daunting task. |

Sigras
Conglomo
804
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 06:03:00 -
[96] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Sigras wrote:Ok, more issues im noticing as I use this system.
I have an ME 10% crystalline carbonide armor plate BPO, and when I show info on it, I see it should take 44 crystalline carbonide and 11 sylramic fibers. This is the same as an ME 0 BPO on TQ, so I thought that the effect of my research was just not being displayed on this screen, but then I looked at an ME 0 BPO and found that it takes 48 crystalline carbonide and 12 symramic fibers...
To add to this confusion, I then attempted to manufacture something with my ME 10% BPO and I found the materials quoted as 30 crystalline carbonide and 8 sylramic fibers.
Is there any reason for this? It seems as though there are some variables being hidden that are messing with the numbers He has said like 10000000000 times show info is screwed, use the "Use blueprint" function and see what it says in that window then it looks like the POS discount is WAY out of whack
Im using a component assembly array (supposed to give a 2% discount) and each run costs 7.425 sylramic fibers and 29.7 crystalline carbonide
that same BPO in a station costs me 9.9 sylramic fibers and 39.6 crystalline carbonide per run
thats a 25% discount not 2%
additionally I was also able to start an invention job without selecting an outcome .... im excited to see what comes out. |
|

CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2379

|
Posted - 2014.06.16 11:00:00 -
[97] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Also I just invented a BPC with no decryptors and a 0/0 input BPC and it came out ME 2% PE 4% I thought everything was being rebalanced so that it was ME 0 PE 0 base with decryptors giving you a bonus?
Additionally I found that the materials required to build were equivalent to -4.5 ME of the old system...
Lastly, I found that the RAM tech tools have not yet been changed over yet... :(
What changes were you expecting to see in RAMs?
Sienna Toth wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Rust Connor]Quick look today. Amazing! A few comments
My understanding is that you can only install corp jobs in a starbase, so you're just taxing yourself, which didn't seem worth the development time. Greyscale: You're correct that we are taxing ourselves, but the tax has a purpose. InGame we have to pay fuel costs. Members of a corp object to paying for features they don't use....Mission Runners and miners don't like to pay for fuel costs unless its in low/null sec or in a wormhole. The 'CURRENT' game allows the assignment of job install costs and cost per hour. Some CEO's/POS Managers will factor the fuel cost per CPU and POWER on the tower and assign charges to the POS module slots based of the amount of fuel consumed. This allows a corp the ability to charge members that use the facilities. How will I be able to do that when we transition to Crius?
There's some discussion of this in the Starbase feedback thread, probably better to roll this sort of stuff over into there :) |
|

Galen Achu
Van Diemens Trading Corporation
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 11:25:00 -
[98] - Quote
DooDoo Gum wrote:Whilst we are getting an industry overhaul, would getting stackable blueprint copies (by me/te) be possible?
This would reduce clutter in any industrialists hanger, and make sorting through the torrents of blueprints a much less daunting task.
Interesting idea. This could make the number of runs on a blueprint obsolete if at the same time it would be possible to start a job with multiple (identical) blueprints as imput. |

Circumstantial Evidence
128
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 16:18:00 -
[99] - Quote
DooDoo Gum wrote:Whilst we are getting an industry overhaul, would getting stackable blueprint copies (by me/te) be possible?
This would reduce clutter in any industrialists hanger, and make sorting through the torrents of blueprints a much less daunting task. The developers have not touched this before, because each BPC has a unique ID. I'd like to see some kind of virtual container be created automatically on a stack attempt, so that BPC's with identical stats can *look* like they are stacking. Once a BPC's stats have changed through use, it would not fit back onto the same "stack." |

Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
713
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:27:00 -
[100] - Quote
Sienna Toth wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Rust Connor]Quick look today. Amazing! A few comments
My understanding is that you can only install corp jobs in a starbase, so you're just taxing yourself, which didn't seem worth the development time. Greyscale: You're correct that we are taxing ourselves, but the tax has a purpose. InGame we have to pay fuel costs. Members of a corp object to paying for features they don't use....Mission Runners and miners don't like to pay for fuel costs unless its in low/null sec or in a wormhole. The 'CURRENT' game allows the assignment of job install costs and cost per hour. Some CEO's/POS Managers will factor the fuel cost per CPU and POWER on the tower and assign charges to the POS module slots based of the amount of fuel consumed. This allows a corp the ability to charge members that use the facilities. How will I be able to do that when we transition to Crius?
Why does this keep coming up? The taxes you charge do NOT come out of players' wallets. They come out of the corp wallet to which that player has been given access. The player that uses the array is not paying for it, unless he/she is donating to the corp wallet. In which case, just have them donate. Or you can charge a nominal membership fee per month. Its the exact same effect without all the extra effort.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being able to set array fees. But until players can pay directly from their own wallet or select from a corp wallet like they can for market transactions, then array taxation does not work.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
|

Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
713
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:31:00 -
[101] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:DooDoo Gum wrote:Whilst we are getting an industry overhaul, would getting stackable blueprint copies (by me/te) be possible?
This would reduce clutter in any industrialists hanger, and make sorting through the torrents of blueprints a much less daunting task. The developers have not touched this before, because each BPC has a unique ID. I'd like to see some kind of virtual container be created automatically on a stack attempt, so that BPC's with identical stats can *look* like they are stacking. Once a BPC's stats have changed through use, it would not fit back onto the same "stack."
Perhaps if BPCs with identical stats except for runs could be "compressed" into one BPC... or perhaps weight the end stats based on the input stats...
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |

Sigras
Conglomo
804
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 19:42:00 -
[102] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Sigras wrote:Also I just invented a BPC with no decryptors and a 0/0 input BPC and it came out ME 2% PE 4% I thought everything was being rebalanced so that it was ME 0 PE 0 base with decryptors giving you a bonus?
Additionally I found that the materials required to build were equivalent to -4.5 ME of the old system...
Lastly, I found that the RAM tech tools have not yet been changed over yet... :( What changes were you expecting to see in RAMs? The posted change about removing damage and multiplying by 100 etc... |

peroxide chase
Mayer Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 22:06:00 -
[103] - Quote
Have t2 BPO's have their base build cost permanently adjusted 35% upward, along with new material requirements added on all non ammo BPO's?
T2 Ship BPO's seem to be capped at 9 runs at a time, t2 drones are at 19, t2 modules are at 9 and t2 ammo is capped at 19 max runs per install. Seems like a bug? |

Sigras
Conglomo
804
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 07:15:00 -
[104] - Quote
Sigras wrote:it looks like the POS discount is WAY out of whack
Im using a component assembly array (supposed to give a 2% discount) and each run costs 7.425 sylramic fibers and 29.7 crystalline carbonide
that same BPO in a station costs me 9.9 sylramic fibers and 39.6 crystalline carbonide per run
thats a 25% discount not 2%
additionally I was also able to start an invention job without selecting an outcome .... im excited to see what comes out. It doesnt seem to be related to the number of arrays online either, and there are no teams active here either... any thoughts? |

Alexander Lion
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 12:13:00 -
[105] - Quote
I would like to know on which base the System Costs are calculated. are they bassed on total jobs, on an time pool or the number of chras which install the jobs?
I installed a frighter BPO for ME research yesterday and the System Costs where a Lvl 0. i had to pay 415k to research to lvl 3. i did this job with 6 BPOs at the same time. today the same job costs 16.5mil, this is about 40 times as much. there are no other research facilities in the system, nor stations with research facilities.
So basicly i can **** up everybodies research/production by putting up a pos and installing some BPOs, research them and then the system costs explode for everyboddy.
i think i have to by some towers and annoy some prodders. |

mr roadkill
Mystery Incorporated
20
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 19:35:00 -
[106] - Quote
So putting up a pos means you pay to run research jobs in labs that you pay to run already by fueling a tower but just you don't get taxed on it.....?
Or are pos exempt from charges since you own them?? |

Alexander Lion
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 19:42:00 -
[107] - Quote
nope you have to pay to install a job at your own pos |

Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
479
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 20:09:00 -
[108] - Quote
In pos Pay job install cost , dont pay npc station tax. In NPC station - pay job install cost, pay NPC station tax. I dont know if Sov stations ahve the same thing, but i dont think so. Job install cost is new for pos as is the npc station tax (which is in addition to the install cost of the job) 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 - 2014.06.18 03:16:00 -
[109] - Quote
Not sure where to put this, but what is up with the new freighters??
You give up basically 75% of your cargo to tank it, but since you can not equip a damage controller, even with the reinforced bulkheads bonus, you can only get up to about 240,000 ehp? Why not enough CPU for a DC II?
What is the point of giving a bonus to fit reinforced bulkheads if you are stuck with 0 resists on the hull? the most important module for hull tanking is a damage controller II.
I know there was talk about being careful to not make them too gank resistant, but WTF, reducing the cargohold to just over 300,000m3 with 3 reinforced bulkhead II's you should do better than 240,000 ehp. I do not see how ~500,000 ehp is overpowered for a max tanked freighter, they would still be dead slow and easy to gank, Cut it down to 2 low slots, but give us a CPU bonus to fit a damage controller. Hulk tanking is actually feasible for capital ships, and what else would you expect for a capital industrial. I have always hull tanked my ORCA's, give the freighter a "real" hull tanking option. A 75% reduction in cargo for a decent hull tank is a fair option. Or change the penalty on the reinforced bulkhead II from -20% cargo to a speed and/or agility penalty. So you are not giving up 75% of your cargo for a 20% increase to tank.
For me, the lost cargo needed to get this pathetic amount of tank, and it is pathetic for a capital ship. A max tanked freighter should be in the 500,000 ehp range, cargo reduced to around 300,000m3 when max tanked is acceptable. there should also be a good speed/agility option, inertial stabilizers, and overdrives, do not have much impact.
There should basically be three options for freighter pilots. A speed/agility fit, for faster align times and travel, A cargo fit, and a tank fit. These should not be slight variations, but significant changes. Speed fit should have base cargo, weakest tank, but great algin and travel times, get you where you are going much faster. Tank fit should have smallest cargo, base speed, but have huge ehp, while the cargo fit would have base ehp, slowest speed, and huge cargo
Please give us enough power grid and CPU to be creative with some fits, and we will sort this out ourselves. If someone comes up with a unexpected fit that is overpowered, you can easily make another pass. Would it really be so bad to give freights so love and ability to resist ganking comparable to what the mining ships got. If this is all you are going to do, then might as well have not even touched them. |

Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1029
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 03:19:00 -
[110] - Quote
double post sorry |
|

Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1029
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 03:25:00 -
[111] - Quote
Not sure where to put this, but what is up with the new freighters??
You give up basically 75% of your cargo to tank it, but since you can not equip a damage controller, even with the reinforced bulkheads bonus, you can only get up to about 240,000 ehp? Why not enough CPU for a DC II?
What is the point of giving a bonus to fit reinforced bulkheads if you are stuck with 0 resists on the hull? the most important module for hull tanking is a damage controller II.
I know there was talk about being careful to not make them too gank resistant, but WTF, reducing the cargohold to just over 300,000m3 with 3 reinforced bulkhead II's you should do better than 240,000 ehp. I do not see how ~500,000 ehp is overpowered for a max tanked freighter, they would still be dead slow and easy to gank, Cut it down to 2 low slots, but give us a CPU bonus to fit a damage controller. Hulk tanking is actually feasible for capital ships, and what else would you expect for a capital industrial. I have always hull tanked my ORCA's, give the freighter a "real" hull tanking option. A 75% reduction in cargo for a decent hull tank is a fair option. Or change the penalty on the reinforced bulkhead II from -20% cargo to a speed and/or agility penalty. So you are not giving up 75% of your cargo for a 20% increase to tank.
For me, the lost cargo needed to get this pathetic amount of tank, and it is pathetic for a capital ship. A max tanked freighter should be in the 500,000 ehp range, cargo reduced to around 300,000m3 when max tanked is acceptable. there should also be a good speed/agility option, inertial stabilizers, and overdrives, do not have much impact.
There should basically be three options for freighter pilots. A speed/agility fit, for faster align times and travel, A cargo fit, and a tank fit. These should not be slight variations, but significant changes. Speed fit should have base cargo, weakest tank, but great algin and travel times, get you where you are going much faster. Tank fit should have smallest cargo, base speed, but have huge ehp, while the cargo fit would have base ehp, slowest speed, and huge cargo
Please give us enough power grid and CPU to be creative with some fits, and we will sort this out ourselves. If someone comes up with a unexpected fit that is overpowered, you can easily make another pass. Would it really be so bad to give freights so love and ability to resist ganking comparable to what the mining ships got. Most mining ships now require a ganking fleet that costs more than the value of the ship. Give freighter the same treatment. currently, according to miniluv doctrine it costs about 800,000,000 isk to gank a freighter. It should be well over 1,000,000,000. If this is all you are going to do, then might as well have not even touched them. |
|

CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2386

|
Posted - 2014.06.18 10:41:00 -
[112] - Quote
Sigras wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Sigras wrote:Also I just invented a BPC with no decryptors and a 0/0 input BPC and it came out ME 2% PE 4% I thought everything was being rebalanced so that it was ME 0 PE 0 base with decryptors giving you a bonus?
Additionally I found that the materials required to build were equivalent to -4.5 ME of the old system...
Lastly, I found that the RAM tech tools have not yet been changed over yet... :( What changes were you expecting to see in RAMs? The posted change about removing damage and multiplying by 100 etc...
Yeah ok, I'll look into that.
peroxide chase wrote:Have t2 BPO's have their base build cost permanently adjusted 35% upward, along with new material requirements added on all non ammo BPO's?
T2 Ship BPO's seem to be capped at 9 runs at a time, t2 drones are at 19, t2 modules are at 9 and t2 ammo is capped at 19 max runs per install. Seems like a bug?
Build costs up, yes, to balance the invention buff out. Max runs per install should be limited to 30 days IIRC, not sure if that's related to what you're seeing or not? The numbers seem to be really weird there, everything ending with a 9 is not something we'd set up on purpose :) |
|
|

CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2387

|
Posted - 2014.06.18 11:04:00 -
[113] - Quote
RAMs are working internally at least, I haven't verified SiSi but they *should* (apparently) be divided up there too. |
|

Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC No Safe Haven
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 12:45:00 -
[114] - Quote
It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy. |
|

CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2389

|
Posted - 2014.06.18 13:15:00 -
[115] - Quote
Droidyk wrote:It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy.
Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs. |
|

Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 13:22:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Droidyk wrote:It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy. Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs. So you get 10 runs on a ship when using an Augmentation, even though the 'max runs' is 1? 'Max runs' is more of a guideline, then.
I'm aware there's some high-run BPCs from before the copy limit was introduced, just wondering if it's intentional. Might be a bit confusing to call it max runs then. (And I thought this patch was to reduce confusion :) |

Unkind Omen
Voyagers Inc.
42
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 13:47:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Droidyk wrote:It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy. Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs.
Why not change decryptors so that they just work as a run multiplier instead? "You get max runs times decryptor output multiplier"?
Example: former +0 runs decryptor get x1 multiplier instead. And a ship bpc invented with former +0 runs decryptor gets max runs(1) x multiplier = 1 run. Former +9 runs decryptor gets x10 multiplier so the ship bpc invented with this gets max runs(1) x multiplier = 10 runs.
This will also fix the decryptors usage for modules and ammunition allowing to multiply 10 default runs by x10 from a max run decryptor instead of just getting 10+9.
|
|

CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2389

|
Posted - 2014.06.18 13:55:00 -
[118] - Quote
Unkind Omen wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Droidyk wrote:It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy. Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs. Why not change decryptors so that they just work as a run multiplier instead? "You get max runs times decryptor output multiplier"? Example: former +0 runs decryptor get x1 multiplier instead. And a ship bpc invented with former +0 runs decryptor gets max runs(1) x multiplier = 1 run. Former +9 runs decryptor gets x10 multiplier so the ship bpc invented with this gets max runs(1) x multiplier = 10 runs. This will also fix the decryptors usage for modules and ammunition allowing to multiply 10 default runs by x10 from a max run decryptor instead of just getting 10+9.
We're expecting to revisit decryptors more comprehensively in the near post-Crius future :) |
|

Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
101
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 15:13:00 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Droidyk wrote:It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy. Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs.
Max runs are 10 on Adaptive Invul Field II, I'm still getting 1 run on a T2 BPC after inventing. CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty...
|
|

CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2391

|
Posted - 2014.06.18 15:29:00 -
[120] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Droidyk wrote:It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy. Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs. Max runs are 10 on Adaptive Invul Field II, I'm still getting 1 run on a T2 BPC after inventing.
I think there's still a bug there that Nullabor's got on his to-fix list. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |