-- A bonus for multiple starbase structures *is* included: for any job installed in a structure, there is a bonus to the build cost based on how many structures of the same type are currently onlined at the tower; the size of the bonus should be listed in the structure's show info. (Yes, there are "exploits" with offlining structures that we will be looking at further.)

- As detailed in this blog, prices are now calculated based on industrial activity in the system.

Is this bonus a linear function of the number of modules of that type, or some higher-order scaling?

Did you implement any of the ideas that were thrown out to limit the number of jobs that could benefit from this sort of bonus simultaneously?

Oh! Also, what is the basis for activity on this SiSi release? Copied from Tranquility, or native?

Ok,

I logged on Sisi and have a quick look at the new templates for reprocessing for example. I am 0.0 but are the station basic station's or will they have what ever upgrades are in them as with current Tranquilty settings? I cant get access to a station service as I aint an owner.

Hope that made sense!

Vic

Greyscale, two issues of note right off the bat:

* People are having severe trouble running jobs due to cost issues.
* There are no teams for rigs, though there are teams for station egg / component construction.

Please fix :)

Can you elaborate on the first point?

Linear, we add them together and then multiply the cost.

No additional fanciness is in place yet.

Per tower or per system? In other words can a conglomerate corporation with multiple poses in one system have even better reduction or is it for specified tower only?

Update: turns out I misunderstood what the programmers were telling me, prices on SiSi right now are in fact garbage and should be ignored. Sorry for the confusion! We'll let you know when we have realistic price data on SiSi to work from :)

Update: turns out I misunderstood what the programmers were telling me,

you can understand them

since it's impossible to start a job from a blueprint that's inside a container (Trying that gives you the following error: Cannot use this blueprint from its current location).

I have at least 20,000 BPCs and BPOs in my alt corp (or at least that's where I stopped counting). The system is completely overwhelmed by it and sorting/finding the item you want to manufacture is not working in a usable way.

Well, it seems for T2 manufacturing, you now need 2 T1 variation items to build

I know this was brought up by some players as being a possibility with the removal of extra materials, but we were also told by CCP (Cannot remember which dev), that something will be put in place to ensure only 1 of the T1 variation items will be required

So, is this a feature or a bug? (I assume bug, but you never know these days)

Obviously not entirely :)

This was actually one of the major promises that were made. May I get developer comment on this: is allowing players to use blueprints that are inside containers still something you're planning to do and haven't gotten to yet, or have you scrapped the idea due to coding issues?

From what I hear of the current SiSi build, it's not nearly as big an issue as it seemed when it was first promised. But it'd still be a nice feature to have when you're juggling several tens of thousand BPCs.

Edit:

Welp. I should update SiSi instead of relying on word of mouth.

http://i.imgur.com/ZmjbwIF.png

Are teams part of the landscape? I assume so. Some of their values are bugged.

I have at least 20,000 BPCs and BPOs in my alt corp (or at least that's where I stopped counting). The system is completely overwhelmed by it and sorting/finding the item you want to manufacture is not working in a usable way.

Also, existing 10 run T2 Drone BPCs have been reduced to ME6 BPCs with one (1) run. Is that what is intended?

Hey

I got a few questions may have missed someone mention this or it was in a dev blog.

Will tax in a system be effected if you inventing or building at a pos and also whats stopping me in empire from spamming all the moons with control towers to stop other people raising the cost to build invent copy etc if it does raise cost. Thinking along the lines of systems with no stations.

Again i might have missed something along the line still in test server. But nice job so far although i cant build muninns and few other things atm on test server due to price information being incorrect or something.

shaun

Well, it seems for T2 manufacturing, you now need 2 T1 variation items to build

I know this was brought up by some players as being a possibility with the removal of extra materials, but we were also told by CCP (Cannot remember which dev), that something will be put in place to ensure only 1 of the T1 variation items will be required

So, is this a feature or a bug? (I assume bug, but you never know these days)

I see teams for "Capital Construction Components" such as Capital Armor Plates, but no place for "Advanced Capital Construction Components" such as Capital Fernite Carbide Composite Armor Plates

Come to think of it, I didnt see any for advanced construction components either IE regular T2 components used to make T2 ships etc.

Is this an oversight? Intended? or am I just blind?

No tax at starbases. Nothing stops you spamming moons with towers except for other players :)

Quick look today. Amazing! A few comments

1) skill
Just checked that Material Efficiency skill didnt change. Any plan for it?

2) install cost
Really like the cost decreasing by number of runs. You should keep that way, without limit.

3) material cost
Love the change to apply ME on total batch. That change alone is amazing. Stimulate long runs and Makes reserch useful even to small rigs. Wish i had a t2 bpo to check if you get a "free hull" on long runs....

I was under the impression that we would have the ability to set the job install tax rate at a POS. Did that not make it in, or was the idea scrapped?

I was really looking forward to bottom up income from industry members.

Linear, we add them together and then multiply the cost.

No additional fanciness is in place yet.

Hope that means some kind of stacking penalty. Otherwise Highsec is going to be littered with POSes that contain only 1 type of module.

Is there a problem with that? :)

Wasn't there an expectation that elimination of research and manufacturing slots would reduce the number and size of POSes such that the isotope market would crash so badly that a demand increase was required in another area?

There are additional considerations playing into that math.

I look forward to seeing the rest of these considerations ;)

the amount of ice in highsec is only enough to supply a part of what is needed.

there is still plenty of ice out there in null and low.

go figure out the rest yourself ;)

something along the lines of getting 20% more from refining in nullsec ?

i always hated it when people talked about free minerals, but yeah, those are free because you can't easily sell them in a market hub and have to produce locally.

something along the lines of getting 20% more from refining in nullsec ?

i always hated it when people talked about free minerals, but yeah, those are free because you can't easily sell them in a market hub and have to produce locally.

1 - What will happen to job running remotly on pos lab when Crius will be deployed ?

a - when done, BPO will return to corp hangar or Pos hangar ?

b - jobs will finish ?

2 - Will members will still see in the ui BPC that are in cans that they cannot view or know of in directors restricted level hangar ?

3 - Some of corp BPO disapeared (they were locked down) since the patch on Sisi, they were in progress or ready to deliver but they just vanished.. Can we get them back ? Will that happen with the real patch ?

That helps a hell of a lot, but my concern is around tech 2 stuff. You're lucky if you can build even 1 race's components from local resources. Then you get key components that are smaller than the goo they're made out of and it just gets silly.

The diversity of resources across New Eden, such that some areas may be coveted for one thing or another... conflicts with player's desire to build any kind of ship or module solely using one region's resources. I don't think market hubs are going away.

Your bid on Core Complexion Inc.
Team MMG00 was not successful. K3JR-J had the highest bid of 2.300.000 ISK. Your bid of 2.000.000 ISK will be returned to you. Core Complexion Inc.
Team MMG00 is now available for hire in K3JR-J.

They don't need to go away, but instead of bringing all the stuff from there to your "home", you should only bring surpluses from your home to the hubs (ie rare minerals, moon goo surplus) and from the hubs things that you cannot get in your home back (ie specific mods, moon goo products from other regions/the other side of the cluster).

One thing CCP should have done long ago is to ensure that raw materials to make ships, mods, POS fuel and other essentials would actually take up significantly less cargo space than the finished products, and then ensure that these raw materials could be sourced locally. That's how you lay the groundwork for a local economy with the correct incentives (nobody likes hauling). Rather than nerfing JFs into the ground.

Yes you should be able to start a job with a blueprint in a container.

Performance with 20,000 blueprints is going to be sub-optimal at the moment, but we still have plans to optimize performance for heavy users, including improving the filtering options based on feedback.

Will you need to have max run bpcs for max run on invention as atm i cant seem to invent or copy anything. If you do need max runs will you look at copying time because for instance (@ pos with maxed skills) copying 1 curator 200 run is like 18 hours per bpc.

Invention error @ pos

Unable to install job due to the following reasons:
FACILITY_TYPE
The job cost has changed

---

Error.FACILITY_TYPE (23564,)
Error.MISMATCH_COST (22, 25)

Copying error on both new and researched blueprints @ pos

Unable to install job due to the following reasons:
The job cost has changed

---

Error.MISMATCH_COST (3976, 3890)

Also as i stated in a previous post here regarding tax ie system cost index. Will i be able to spam all the moons in a none system station to keep this cost down and stop other people raising it Or is this a constant price and isnt effected by amount of industry related jobs, Because you said that theirs no tax at pos's and i kinda see this as tax tbh. I assume this would be 0 in player owned systems and lower in low sec but shouldn't corps with standings towards a certain faction get a reduction on this cost if it is the case that pos's get charged system cost index (shouldnt be better then low sec or 0.0 though even with high standings)

shaun

-- A bonus for multiple starbase structures *is* included: for any job installed in a structure, there is a bonus to the build cost based on how many structures of the same type are currently onlined at the tower; the size of the bonus should be listed in the structure's show info. (Yes, there are "exploits" with offlining structures that we will be looking at further.)

Imagine a scenario:
I am a big industrialist, like to do things properly (=perfect).
I focus on the production of a single item type, consider job installation costs, teams etc.
Of course, I want to manufacture in a starbase to get the small material bonus.
Now, I can reduce job installation costs by the use of multiple arrays (max. roughly 25% if I cram as many arrays as possible into a large POS).
Of course I am very spacerich and thinking long-term, so initial investments don't bother me. And I laugh about risks ofc. :-D
Slightly simplified, I have the following choices:

a) Small tower, pay around 100mISK per month in fuel, get about 6% job installation cost reduction (~25% max bonus, ~25% thereof will fit into a small tower)
b) Medium tower, 200mISK fuel, 12% discount
c) large tower, 400mISK fuel, 24% discount

As you can see, all POSes have the same throughput due to no slot limits.
So I will always choose a) UNLESS 6% discount save me more than 100mISK per month, in which case I will always choose c).
If I need to save 100mISK with the 6% discount, my monthly job installation costs will have to be higher than 1.666bil ISK.

It is assumed in the dev blog that typically the job installation costs range from 1-5% of the value of produced goods.
Assume I am in a somewhat heavy duty industrial hub since I want that special team that saves some material.
Normally I would pay around 8% of my produced goods value as job installation cost.

Which means I need to produce 20.8333 bil ISK in goods per month before a large POS can even start to become profitable.

Conclusion:
Unless I am using like 10 toons 24/7 on the same POS on the same type of goods, I will always choose setup a).

Although I really like the idea of a stacking bonus, I suspect the current proposal to be a too weak incentive to put up large towers - also quite far away from making this a "meaningful" choice in practically all relevant scenarios.
I therefore expect corresponding effects on fuel and PI demand in general.

Anything I missed?

The part where you may want to have a large tower that is easier to defend.

You may have to defend it because you need to put your bpos in there in order to benefit from the bonus.

Oh, and those 20b a month. Not really a problem, I go through this per week. However, my products vary quite a bit, so I'm probably gonna need more than one type of array

- Standings stuff is something we'd like to have, but it doesn't make sense to use it for industry until there are ways to raise it through industry.

Having realised that, how about killing standings for market fees and locator agents, neither of which have anything to do with missioning, the only way to raise standing currently?

EDIT: Ahem, technically I guess you can raise standing by fw promotions too.

As and when we get to revisiting those areas, that will probably be a thing that we consider :)

You can get agent / npc corp standings in an "industrial way" - courier / distribution missions. Raising standings with NPC corps through submitting industry jobs? Hmmm.... :) How could that be scaled, so that it takes a similar amount of time or effort to raise standings, compared to existing methods? I think there would have to be an "over time period" element. Without a time check, a player might quickly reach high standings, by submitting a ton of low cost ammo jobs, or a few very large and expensive jobs.

It would require some design work, yes :)

- Don't need max runs, only need one run per job
- Nothing to stop you spamming moons except other players
- We have two distinct things, the base workforce cost which everyone pays and which scales on activity per system, and the NPC station tax which is levied on top of that but skipped in starbases and configurable in player-owned stations
- Standings stuff is something we'd like to have, but it doesn't make sense to use it for industry until there are ways to raise it through industry.

I have surfed SiSi and can't find ANYWHERE to set tax or even set restriction on production lines in a player owned station

Can you please tell me where I can find these settings, I am at the point of frustration, i have clicked every thing i can think of and the game is having its way with me and it is payback time.

Something that just came to my mind: Will we have the opportunity to retract bids for Teams?

As depicted in my other post before, people can mess with other people already; henceforth, there should also be a way to mess back against these trolls.

I don't think this would be a good idea. One could drop an incredibly high bid to discourage others from bidding, then retract it at the last second to allow a second much lower bid to win.

This would only benefit the already extremely rich by allowing them to game the system. If you drop a huge bid, you should have to stick with it.

1) Yes, there's a plan, it's not done yet
2) It becomes silly for certain items, we're probably going to use 1) to cap it some how
3) No free hulls!



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.

They should only be seeing blueprints that they can normally see through the inventory, based on roles. (Let me know if you find a case where that isn't true)

As said above, as it is, it can be exploited already and also only benefits the rich. With retracting, you can sure have this gigantic bid, but you can then also concentrate on the second place with more reasonable bids and bet on the retraction of the gigantic bid.

vOv

So I just tried to research a crystalline carbonide armor plate blueprint to level 1 ME...

The quote said just under a minute, but when I put the job in, it went in for just over 6 hours and one minute...

However after a minute or so went by, the job was able to be delivered. Must just be a display bug.

Will we be getting rig teams? This is an issue near and dear to my heart.

I know greyscale saw it I just didn't see a comment.

Also, currently I am getting 0% success chance of capital trimark inventions on sisi right now.

Blowing away my pos, while understandable, makes it hard to test these things without some spinup time.

ALSO I HIT POST, WHY DOES IT EAT MY POST AND TURN IT INTO A HALF-FORGOTTEN DRAFT.

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... :(

I'll restate how array taxes work for those that don't know or didn't happen to read my post in the F&I thread.

With the removal of remote research, the interface became completely useless. So it was removed. In order to use a POS lab or mfg array, one requires the following roles: Factory Manager, Rent Factory/Research Slot, Hanger Access (Other), and access to at least one corp wallet division.

WARNING! These roles allow anyone with them to completely clean out everything in every in-space hanger and that wallet, with the exception of audit log containers. So if you give someone hanger other access to a hanger division that someone is using to build a titan, they can deliver the titan job and steal it once it is complete.

Because POS arrays only have corp hanger divisions, in order to use them you have to put your stuff in the corp hanger. This makes all jobs installed at the array a corp job, not a personal one. And as a Factory Manager, you are renting on your corp's behalf, not on your own. Thus the fees/taxes are taken out of your currently active corp wallet division. Those fees are then deposited directly into the corp master wallet.

tl:dr; POS roles are at best half-assed, and in cases like this completely broken. WTB POS roles revamp.

There are a couple ways I can think of to fix it. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

[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?

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

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... :(

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?

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.

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.

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?

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."

What changes were you expecting to see in RAMs?

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.

The posted change about removing damage and multiplying by 100 etc...

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?

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.

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.

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.

RAMs are working internally at least, I haven't verified SiSi but they *should* (apparently) be divided up there too.

sorry, apparently I was just looking at the show info window :( my bad...

Any thoughts on the 25% discount I seem to be getting for manufacturing in a POS instead of a station?

EDIT: to clarify, right now I seem to be getting a 25% material discount not a 25% job cost discount. When i put a BPC in for manufacturing at a POS, the build quote is 25% less than when I put that same BPC in at a station.

Unable to install job due to the following reasons:
The job cost has changed

---

Error.MISMATCH_COST (1284, 1020)

I think there's still a bug there that Nullabor's got on his to-fix list.

Sooo, when can we expect to not essentially pay more than double for T1 items? (job cost being the same or higher than material cost for said item)

Out of curiosity...what is the cut-off date for deciding too much is still broken to attempt to deploy in 1 months time....and or how many of these known (or otherwise obviously broken issues) bugs will be considered acceptable to deploy to TQ anyways.

I only ask because "will push for a fix next week hopefully" with only 5 weeks to deployment (after this whole thing was already pulled out of a release) makes me a bit leery.

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.

Out of curiosity...what is the cut-off date for deciding too much is still broken to attempt to deploy in 1 months time....and or how many of these known (or otherwise obviously broken issues) bugs will be considered acceptable to deploy to TQ anyways.

I only ask because "will push for a fix next week hopefully" with only 5 weeks to deployment (after this whole thing was already pulled out of a release) makes me a bit leery.

After spending a while getting my reprocessing spreadsheet to work properly it was time to do my cap con sheet.

looked round the S&I interface and while yes it looks pretty, it lacks certain features.

Can't filter for BPO/BPC
No group so can't easily find "Carriers" need to type the ship name into the filter box
Hate the way that moving the scroll wheel on the mouse changes the 'Job Runs'

That aside, I started working on figures.

Started with a ME7% Nidhoggur

Ooh pretty icons on the top left for the components, but they seem to be in a weird order, not alphabetical (Propulsion engine first) thanks for making my life just a bit more difficult grrr

ok, so I need 11 Capital propulsion engines for 1 ship, but wait, I nudged my scroll wheel and now it shows 21, so moved it back and back to 11..... wait a minute, if 1 ship takes 11 propulsion engines, surely 2 ships will take 22, 3 ships take 33 etc...
nope, 11,21,31,41,52,62 so each ship seems to take 10.33333rec capital propulsion engines

When I look at other component figures, they also have some rounding going on and don't just multiply the figures for building 1 ship.

Please don't tell me this is correct? does it want a bug report or will a dev acknowledge this here so I know it's been looked at?

After spending a while getting my reprocessing spreadsheet to work properly it was time to do my cap con sheet.

looked round the S&I interface and while yes it looks pretty, it lacks certain features.

Can't filter for BPO/BPC
No group so can't easily find "Carriers" need to type the ship name into the filter box
Hate the way that moving the scroll wheel on the mouse changes the 'Job Runs'

That aside, I started working on figures.

Started with a ME7% Nidhoggur

Ooh pretty icons on the top left for the components, but they seem to be in a weird order, not alphabetical (Propulsion engine first) thanks for making my life just a bit more difficult grrr

ok, so I need 11 Capital propulsion engines for 1 ship, but wait, I nudged my scroll wheel and now it shows 21, so moved it back and back to 11..... wait a minute, if 1 ship takes 11 propulsion engines, surely 2 ships will take 22, 3 ships take 33 etc...
nope, 11,21,31,41,52,62 so each ship seems to take 10.33333rec capital propulsion engines

When I look at other component figures, they also have some rounding going on and don't just multiply the figures for building 1 ship.

Please don't tell me this is correct? does it want a bug report or will a dev acknowledge this here so I know it's been looked at?

We did some test on SISI to produce ships from Null-sec amarr outposts. The material needed were reduced. It seems the Amarr outpost is applying a ME and PE bonus to production, reducing the amount of material needed. Is this intended or is this a bug ?

Ooh pretty icons on the top left for the components, but they seem to be in a weird order, not alphabetical (Propulsion engine first) thanks for making my life just a bit more difficult grrr

According to the dev blog and probably 50 dev replies over the past 4 weeks, it is most certainly working as intended

I might be mistaken, but he might be referring to the very large (30% in the outpost I tried) discount it was giving. Is this related to the overly high discount given in the POS as mentioned a few replies above?

I know Amarr outposts were supposed to have some material bonus, but it seems to be mirroring the time bonus.

Yes I am referring to the 30% discount applied to the material in amarr outposts. I have seen a lot of dev-post on the POS, but no-one seem to be discussing the outpost (to my knowledge), other than the minmattar refining bonus.
If someone has relevant information, coming from a dev about the amarr outpost please link it !

Manufacturing costs in Sisi (approximately) for a 4 runs Heretic BPC:

Highsec: 6.900.000 ISK
Low Sec: 3.500.000 ISK
Null (Gallente outpost): 500.000 ISK
Null (Amarr outpost): 390.000 ISK + less materials
Null (NPC conquerable station): 144.500 ISK

I don't understand this, manufacturing slots are going to be cheaper in conquerable 0.0 stations?.

I noticed that the manufacturing times have changed a lot for some blueprints.

For example ammunition blueprints currently in TQ are all four (4) minutes per batch of 100 hundred units. Where as in Sisi they are 4 minutes for small ammo (S size, rocket, light missiles), 9 minutes for medium (M size, H and HA missiles) and 14 minutes for large (L size, cruise, torp). All numbers without skills/implants/w.e. effects.

The same type of change was done also to combat, EW and logistics drones.

On the other hand I can now produce some T2 modules more than four times faster than before.

Manufacturing times for ships seem to be unchanged.

What has prompted these changes? What is the problem that this change is trying to solve? And why these particular numbers? Why not for example keep the medium ammo mfg times the same, increase large ammo times and decrease small ammo times.

I'm not sure exactly how the numbers on SiSi are working right now, but as detailed at length in the costing blog, costs scale based on how busy a system is. Costs are per-system, not per-station-type.

-- The multi-run discount is not currently being capped; this is expected to see further balancing.

So, May it be possible a null system with high production taxes?. Is the production taxes base the same in null, low and high, or is greater in high an low sec?. I mean base taxes in a system, when no one have started yet any production job.

so if i understand this correctly CCP wants to encourage longer jobs (build multiple ships) via reduced costs. However this only really works if you are using BPOs, right? I mean if i want to build 20 slicers i have 20x 1 run BPCs and run into the worst case scenario.

Are there any plans to be able to concatenate several BPCs into one long job? Otherwise i don't really see why the cost reduction based on job length is there in the first place. I bet most jobs are run from BPCs and not BPOs.

There's no variation in base numbers between different systems. Some facilities (including station types) do give bonuses to that cost, but in a non-station system (probably building in a starbase in that case) the base numbers are the same everywhere.

There is any word on what the Material Efficiency Skill will do on crius?? right now it doesnt do anything on SISI.

There is a chance that the SP will be refunded?

We're still finalizing this, but we're very keen to have something for it to do that doesn't involve reimbursement.

What really is there left? That skill is was one of the longest and literally the most essential to train for any industrialist under the old system. One of the first, that any new industry toon trains.

You'd be hard pressed to find a replacement role, that's not already covered by other skills, which is equal to the 1.5 weeks it takes to train.

Really Advanced Mass Production? (+5 slots)

Advanced Industry? (25% time saving)

Production Expert? (ME bonus multiplier to multiple runs)

So a refund.

Because everything else would turn it into "a huge accessibility problem for industry".

By the way, since when does CCP think that lengthy specialization is a problem?
If I recall your stance correctly, specialization in mining and reprocessing is supposed to take a lot of time. How is industry different? And do not think about giving me that the ME skill keeps players out of the industry. It is just as essential for the activity as any reprocessing skill in order to be absolutely efficient. Even if you don't have ME V, you can still produce with lots of profits if you buy minerals for cheap prices - and this actually forces encourages players to think about what they do, how they do it and how it's done most efficiently even with lackluster skills. And it shows them that every activity involves effort in EVE.

You want to take that away?

At its current TQ power level, it's not a specialization, it's a requirement to be competitive, and it's a completely arbitrary requirement. It's not even interacting with other systems, it's just an artificial wastage that's imposed solely so the skill can take it away again.

We're looking to find a bonus we can give it that's in line with what you'd expect from the skill's attributes. We're not going to make it as powerful as it's previously been. We don't want to give out a refund.

At its current TQ power level, it's not a specialization, it's a requirement to be competitive, and it's a completely arbitrary requirement. It's not even interacting with other systems, it's just an artificial wastage that's imposed solely so the skill can take it away again.

We're looking to find a bonus we can give it that's in line with what you'd expect from the skill's attributes. We're not going to make it as powerful as it's previously been. We don't want to give out a refund.

At its current TQ power level, it's not a specialization, it's a requirement to be competitive, and it's a completely arbitrary requirement. It's not even interacting with other systems, it's just an artificial wastage that's imposed solely so the skill can take it away again.

We're looking to find a bonus we can give it that's in line with what you'd expect from the skill's attributes. We're not going to make it as powerful as it's previously been. We don't want to give out a refund.

If anything, then chars without the skill will be not/less competitive in situations where there is a massive use of teams.
As they are designed to be the "pull" element, this should happen in the places that are going to be production hubs. I imagine more advanced/specialized producers hanging out there and generally a higher level of competition.
The skill might be less powerful in less busy areas that are dominated by the "push" part of the production costs.

Does that make any sense? :-D

Make it a team bonus bonus then. If that does not break everything else.

+5-+25% more bonus from teams.
If the choice "team yes/no" is situational and not always "yes or you are dumb", then such a bonus will not be a "requirement".

1. ->learn basic industry
2. ->try out teams
3. ->specialize on those situations

If anything, then chars without the skill will be not/less competitive in situations where there is a massive use of teams.
As they are designed to be the "pull" element, this should happen in the places that are going to be production hubs. I imagine more advanced/specialized producers hanging out there and generally a higher level of competition.
The skill might be less powerful in less busy areas that are dominated by the "push" part of the production costs.

Does that make any sense? :-D

At its current TQ power level...

The prospect mining frigate is not recognized as either "frigate" or "small class" in the "Teams" tab in the overview window. This does work for the venture mining frigate.

Punkturis just fixed this internally, it should now be recognized as a "small class"; it's not a "frigate" because that's only for T1 frigates, which the Venture is but the Prospect isn't.

Then wouldn't it make sense for the "frigate" label to be changed to "T1 frigate" or similar to avoid confusion?

MDD

I have noticed some inconsistencies with the BPO mapping:

On TQ i used to have a T2 PBC of "Capital energy discharge elutriation II" at ME0 and PE0. On sisi i got the same PBC with ME +9% and TE +18%.

However, material costs of building it on TQ is lower than on SISI: 22/55/55 vs 28/69/69 for the Current Pump / Interface Circuit / Micro Circuit materials.

Iv noticed the same problem with all my T2 BPCs.

Is this a bug, or by design?

Also a Small Proton Smartbomb II used to be ME -4 and PE-4 and now it is ME +6% TE and +14% The old version of it used Mex/Morph/Nocx/Zyd + Plasma Pulse generator + the T1 version (81/3/6/6 + 4 + 1). Now it uses only Morph/zyd + Plasma Pulse generator + T1 mod (3/4 + 6 + 1)

I dont understand the consistency of the mapping at all.

So, basically the descriptors are almost useless on cirus?

there is any plan to buff the descriptors effects? otherwise you just killed the exploration minigame

Tnx for the reply =)

I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but a quick search of the forums didn't come up with anything. I'm also not sure if this is the right thread to ask about this in, but I'll do it anyhow:

Is the 10% NPC tax for manufacturing and refining in stations still avoidable through having high standings with the corp that owns the station?

#13Posted: 2014.07.10 16:54 | Report
Like
Tzar Sinak wrote:
I have been asking this because there is no specific mention of it: Do NPC Corps standings play any part of the manufacturing costs? If yes, we are still tied to the standings grind to minimize costs. If no, we are freed to travel anywhere to use any NPC station because of an across the board equality between NPC corps.

Thanks for the hard work guys.


Standings play no part in new industry cost scaling.
CCP Nullarbor // Exotic Dancer // DEVGIFS

Build cost comparison: yes, this will happen, because the impact of decryptors on build cost is *significantly* reduced currently. On a raw, undecrypted BPC you should be around the same material costs, but on TQ the jump from -4 to 0 is reducing your build costs by ~50%, whereas the same decryptor on SiSi is moving you from 2% to 6% and thus reducing your build costs by ~4%.

I think there's still a bug there that Nullabor's got on his to-fix list.

That doesn't make sense. The TQ decryptor reduces the material requirements from 200% of base to 100% of base. On Sisi I would expect the decryptor reduce the material requirements from 100% of base to 96% of base. Therefore the TQ build cost of 100% of base should be slightly more than the Sisi build cost of 96%.

But then you (CCP) increased the base costs on Sisi. Presumably you increased base build costs so that TQ ME-4 is equivalent to Sisi ME2%. Which should make Davy's ME+9% BPC have a slightly lower build cost than the "normal" ME+2%, which, again, should be equivalent to TQ ME-4 build cost. That isn't what we are seeing. We are seeing substantial across-the-board increases in build costs on Sisi (22 to 28 is a 27% increase, 55 to 69 is 25%).

MDD

Any progress on this? (or did I miss an update) I just tested for mining crystals on my alt and got a 1 run t2 bpc

CCP: Consider putting standings into manufacturing somewhere. Having an incentive to create standings with the NPC station facilities gives players a reason to log in and be in space. Choices, interesting game play, a distinction between doing industry in a station vs POS, etc.

The NPC industry tax seems like a natural fit like with trade and refining, but it could be anything. It could be a minimal requirement - certainly not excessive like the current POS standing requirements. But if I moved to another region to try to find a good team or install cost, I wouldn't mind having my standings with the relevant NPC corporation come into play.

This is something we would like to look at, yes.

Awesome idea.

I can't think of anything that would make industrialists happier than having to re-skill and grind endless missions on the 5+ alts it takes to begin to be competitive as an industrialist.

Sarcasm aside, tying NPC standings into anything is usually a bad idea. It's forcing people to grind them, and let's be under no illusion, every way to get them involves some kind of mundane repetitive grinding.

Depends what we do and how much impact it has. A prerequisite for tying standings back into industry would be to allow you to gain standings by doing industry, because grinding missions to do industry would indeed be silly

I'm 100% behind granting additional benefits to characters involved in industry, but in the case of standings I would want to be absolutely sure that negative derived standings are nullified as it would present a significant barrier to re-location as it's not entirely out the question that industry toons would, over time, drop below -5, for doing nothing more than building ships.

Punkturis just fixed this internally, it should now be recognized as a "small class"; it's not a "frigate" because that's only for T1 frigates, which the Venture is but the Prospect isn't.

That would mean the Prospect only has a broad speciality and no narrow speciality. Is that intentional?

Or should it be considered a covops?

This is something we would like to look at, yes.

Just a quick question, on the test server it states that tax is 10% across the board. I was under the impression that this was going to be affected by the quality of the npc stations in the various systems. Has this not yet been implemented on the test server, or was the idea scrapped?