Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |

Conjaqq
Cause For Concern Easily Excited
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 16:30:00 -
[61] - Quote
Nice changes.
I got one question, where does one aquire the Thukker Component Assembly Array? |

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3752
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 16:30:00 -
[62] - Quote
*deleted* |

E6o5
Tyler Durden Demolitions
265
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 16:38:00 -
[63] - Quote
I don't like that you killed the mini profession of corp creators. Also it doesn't make sense for a faction to allow you to anchor a POS in their space if you have negative standings towards them. |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
3342
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 16:49:00 -
[64] - Quote
Querns wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:it appears easy to work around the 7-day new corp anchoring restriction with an alt wardec contingency corp, allowing players to dissolve their corp to avoid a wardec and immediately put the starbase back up?
is it because you intend for there to be a workaround, that you don't think it's important, or is patching the workaround outside the scope of this set of changes? Similar workarounds exist today; you can keep one or more alternate corps kicking around with their standings pre-baked. I suspect the change isn't to "fix" this problem, it's to maintain congruence with the way things are now. At least, that's what I was gunning for when I first suggested this idea months ago. Think of it this way -- every alternate corp you have to evade wardecs requires at least one character to keep the corporation alive. How many plex per month is any given person willing to spend just to safeguard their corporation?
Yeah. I was just excited to hear that changes were being made with wars in mind. But thinking about it more, it's not really time to make them more vulnerable. They should be made more useful, usable, defendable (guns) and interesting to fight around before they're exposed completely to war declarations
That's assuming they should be more exposed to wardecs. It's something I look forwards too, though. A more interesting highsec
You're right about the lost value of an alt character slot, of course. I can't guess at what'd happen vOv
|

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Gentlemen's Agreement
31
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 16:53:00 -
[65] - Quote
Qoi wrote:Quote:Whole and single items will not be affected by this calculation. This is most relevant for Tech I items required to manufacture Tech II variations. For example, building 10 Paladins will not require 9 Apocalypse if you have a 10% ME.
You just brought extra materials back.  What exactly is a "whole and single" item? (in term of invTypeMaterials and ramTypeRequirements?) I thought you wanted to simplify the material calculations. 
My take is that a job consisting of X number of runs will require at least X number of units of each component; but I am not sure. The "whole" part makes me think that if a run requires 2.000000 units (not rounded, but "whole") of stuff then 20 runs need 40 units of stuff regardless of ME, but since that is quite a big difference from 36 units of stuff when running with 10% ME....argh, my head hurts.
Clarification from CCP is certainly needed. :) |

TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
237
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 16:57:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:Could I ask for some clarification on one point? I don't think I fully understand the change to Supply Chain Management (SCM) and Scientific Networking. Are you removing the regional restriction for starting RAM jobs remotely? For example, if I had SCM trained to 1, could I start a job in Muvolailen (The Citadel) from Jita (The Forge)? Yes, regional limits are being removed. The new skills will just check for jump distance between blueprint and yourself.
Ok,
So industrialists can work inter-regional, that is not possible in other professions, pls let other enablers have the same!
- Inter-regional stacking - Inter-regional accepting contracts. - Inter-regional price adjusting of orders*
Make a skill if you need for each if need be.
* this way you could maintain a price lvl of all your orders across new eden. Since you cannot lookup local markets remotely, is has a disadvantage to trading while in the same region. I would not vote for inter-regional setting up of orders.
Let me sneak in another thing, a repost btw;
The "Corporation Member Cap Increase" was argued based upon "a growing game"
While having a nice industry revamp, with unlimited slots, traders are still very limited in game, on 305 orders, 21 public contracts, etc... my suggestions;
Contracting gives you 21 contracts to work with. (For each level of this skill the number of outstanding contracts is increased by four (up to a maximum of 21 at level 5). Please make this 42. Corporate contracts have a limit of 500 (Corporations have a hard limit of 500 outstanding public contracts.), make it 1000. Trade skills go to 305 orders, I would propose this, 4 to 8 (Trade), 8 to 16 (Retail), 16 to 32 (Wholesale), 32 to 64 (tycoon)
Thx. |

probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:00:00 -
[67] - Quote
Theodore Knox wrote:Interesting... Quote:Structure cost scaling
Removing slots from industry jobs discourage players from stacking more than one Starbase structure of the same type at a Control Tower. To counteract this point, we are going to give specific bonuses when Starbase structures of the same type are stacked together at the same control tower.
This bonus is going to be a flat reduction on the whole job cost price, whose amount and total bonus varies depending on the Starbase structure itself. Let's pretend I'm a small scale T2 croozer manufacturer... So, to get the full benefit to reduced job costs, I'm going to need a Large Caldari tower, with 50 component assembly arrays, to get a 25% edge on the install cost all my component jobs. Now, I'm a small scale producer, so I'm not likely to run this sort of set up all month, every month. I'm going to want to throw in some other modules to do other jobs on my shiny new large pos. So there'll be 13 Medium Ship Assembly Arrays too. When I want to switch back and forth between them, that's a lot of off-lining and on-lining to do, unless I sink more isk into pos costs and get me a second large tower - destroying my margins further. And then my head starts to hurt, because I'm trying to work out, how many jobs at 25% lpwer install cost am I going to need to run to break even on the pos fuel costs. Have you any idea how cluttered my tower is going to be? I make it 63 assembly arrays alone... This is a profoundly messy game mechanic.
No one is forcing you to take advantage of this mechanic. Especially since this mechanic isn't meant to be for "small scale" manufacturers; it's meant to somewhat preserve the current balance for large-scale manufacturers. If you don't already have multiple POSes up, you are not going to be particularly affected by the install cost changes. |

Rekkr Nordgard
Imperial Reclaiming
391
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:09:00 -
[68] - Quote
I really like the compression and refining changes and generally like change to the POS modules. However the module stacking bonus is a just plain bad game mechanic, you need to figure out a different way to do that. And removing the standings requirement for highsec POSes makes no sense and is immersion breaking. |

Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
159
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:12:00 -
[69] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:I think it was Fozzie that mentioned earlier about anchoring and onlining douchebag stuff
If we anchor and online several assy arrays before a job, then offline and unanchor after the job to save isk on install what repercussions will there be.
It was mentioned before in the previous thread and the threats were pretty broad, I just kinda want that updated in this thread before the 5675866758587587 questions get asked.
I pointed that one out in the comments for the original announcement. It didn't seem like this had been thought about and I didn't receive an answer. |

Circumstantial Evidence
128
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:24:00 -
[70] - Quote
Online / Offline array tricks: I also posted an idea in the Starbase thread and haven't noticed a definitive statement on how it will be handled. probag Bear re-stated the question in post #4 in this thread. |

Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
404
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:25:00 -
[71] - Quote
Wiener Chomper wrote:Quote:Newly formed corporations will need to wait 7 days before being able to anchor Starbases. This is to inhibit players from immediately moving Starbase assets to another corporation if under a war declaration. So basically all we need to do is create a bunch of corporations now using alts so that players can immediately move starbase assets to another corporation so we can avoid war? EZPZ
If the deccing corp has good intel and spies they will find those corps and dec them too. |

Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
159
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:25:00 -
[72] - Quote
I still stand by my opinion that the idea of having multiple arrays of the same type in a POS is a real bodge job method to give additional bonuses.
A far better idea would be to have new skill/s that have to be learnt, maybe at 10x skill time if you like, to give tax bonuses at POSes. A reply from CCP is to why this is not a better idea would be nice too. |

Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
404
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:29:00 -
[73] - Quote
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:So, I spent years grinding empire standings, a big part of the reason why, was so I could put up a POS on my high sec alt.
Whats the point of spending time grinding empire standing now?
CCP please don't make our years worth of standing useless!
Wut. It shouldn't take years. If you run all the Career agents, and the circle agents, and do the Sisters arc and turn in all the pirate tags it takes less than a week! |

Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
123
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:29:00 -
[74] - Quote
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:Wiener Chomper wrote:Quote:Newly formed corporations will need to wait 7 days before being able to anchor Starbases. This is to inhibit players from immediately moving Starbase assets to another corporation if under a war declaration. So basically all we need to do is create a bunch of corporations now using alts so that players can immediately move starbase assets to another corporation so we can avoid war? EZPZ If the deccing corp has good intel and spies they will find those corps and dec them too.
This is extremely easy to do now with little intel and no spies required. You just look at the employment record of the member/s. You can then see where they move to and immediately wardec the next corp they will move to. |

Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
159
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:35:00 -
[75] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Online / Offline array tricks: I also posted an idea in the Starbase thread and haven't noticed a definitive statement on how it will be handled. probag Bear re-stated the question in post #4 in this thread.
CCP Grayscale said offlining 'shouldn't be too much of a problem'. I personally disagree and think that all the arrays used to attain the bonus should have to be online until the job is finished.
In addition I asked what would happen if the additional arrays were unanchored as well as being offlined. As of yet an answer has not been given as to whether this would be possible to do and if so then would the tax bonus be refused.
Basically it's a massive loophole and an unsatisfactory and messy way of attaining a tax bonus. |

Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
449
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:35:00 -
[76] - Quote
Why does it cost to build things at a POS? I built the POS, I'm paying for fuel for it, why am I getting charged again to manufacture things? |

Letto Atreides
Still Water Intergalactic Holdings Absolute Darkness
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:45:00 -
[77] - Quote
Stacking Multiple Arrays in the POS is going to be such a clickfest.
Example: if i want max boost for research that's 13 labs. 1. 13 times to anchor 2. 13 times to online/offline if i want to change to other types of arrays 3. 13x7 (corp hanger divisions) = 91 divisions, which are unsearchable from assets tab, where my that bpc copy that was just delivered may be hiding, etc etc
It would be much better if we could just anchor one array and then upgrade it using some mix of isk and materials like we do with POCOs or in PI command centers. It could still take up the same power/cpu as 13 individual arrays but it wouldn't be a management nightmare. |

Myxx
744
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:46:00 -
[78] - Quote
Quote:Timed restriction to anchor Control Towers
Newly formed corporations will need to wait 7 days before being able to anchor Starbases. This is to inhibit players from immediately moving Starbase assets to another corporation if under a war declaration.
The clever among us have pre-formed alt corporations. All this will do is make it so that alt corporations are formed far ahead of time for this specific purpose of avoiding the timer. Its mildly idiotic to have that restriction with that in mind. All you're doing is being an annoyance.
Edit: Also, dickstars. oh gods the dickstars... |

Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
404
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:50:00 -
[79] - Quote
Ereshgikal wrote:Qoi wrote:Quote:Whole and single items will not be affected by this calculation. This is most relevant for Tech I items required to manufacture Tech II variations. For example, building 10 Paladins will not require 9 Apocalypse if you have a 10% ME.
You just brought extra materials back.  What exactly is a "whole and single" item? (in term of invTypeMaterials and ramTypeRequirements?) I thought you wanted to simplify the material calculations.  My take is that a job consisting of X number of runs will require at least X number of units of each component; but I am not sure. The "whole" part makes me think that if a run requires 2.000000 units (not rounded, but "whole") of stuff then 20 runs need 40 units of stuff regardless of ME, but since that is quite a big difference from 36 units of stuff when running with 10% ME....argh, my head hurts. Clarification from CCP is certainly needed. :)
the example given right in the same paragraph is very clear -- for tech II items the tech I component needed will alway match in number to the number of final items.
How could "For example, building 10 Paladins will not require 9 Apocalypse if you have a 10% ME." be any less than clear? You will alway need the 10 Apocalypses - one ship won't materialize out of thin air without a base item.
A module example: "For example, building 10 Damage Control IIs will not require 9 Damage Control Is if you have a 10% ME." |

Mila Joevovich
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:54:00 -
[80] - Quote
Looking foward to having reprocessing nerfed to the point of making loot not worth the effort to pick up  |

Theodore Knox
Technologies Unlimited Superior Eve Engineering
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:55:00 -
[81] - Quote
Vodka Tequila wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Theodore Knox wrote:Does the Assembly Array stacking bonus apply to arrays of only one type, or can you mix and match in each category? e.g. will i need 13 Medium Ship Assembly Arrays, or can I have 12 MSAAs and 1 Advanced to get the same bonus to jobs in the advanced array? They stack within the same category. That is not bad. But may i suggest you increase cost reduction per structure for Small ship assembley arrays and Component/Equipment arrays. The total bonus should stay the same as in devblog, but there won't be a requirement to anchor 27 and 50 arrays. It seams to me, there are not many manufacturers (if any), who currently use so many arrays of these types on the same POS. And would you be so kind to clarify, would the offline structures count towards the bonus or not.
The max bonus seems to based on a tower with max number of arrays in the same category. If you reduce the bonus per array, you open the possibility of getting better bonuses across a broader range of activities.
Seems like they want each pos to specialize to get the best saving.
|

Pic'n dor
Epsilon Lyr Mordus Angels
24
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 17:58:00 -
[82] - Quote
Letto Atreides wrote:Stacking Multiple Arrays in the POS is going to be such a clickfest.
Example: if i want max boost for research that's 13 labs. 1. 13 times to anchor 2. 13 times to online/offline if i want to change to other types of arrays 3. 13x7 (corp hanger divisions) = 91 divisions, which are unsearchable from assets tab, where my that bpc copy that was just delivered may be hiding, etc etc
It would be much better if we could just anchor one array and then upgrade it using some mix of isk and materials like we do with POCOs or in PI command centers. It could still take up the same power/cpu as 13 individual arrays but it wouldn't be a management nightmare.
+1 clickfest >>> you make S&I more complicated than before and far less newcomers friendly (those experienced builders will burn the margins..)
Upgrading labs and arrays or even "rig" style them > destroyed upon unanchoring... anything that cost time and money to get and is worth to have but no click fest... you wanted S&I to be more productive, intuitive etc (think of the redo job you made)...
91 division unsolvable dilemma >>> http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/a75RVNb_460sa.gif
|

Theodore Knox
Technologies Unlimited Superior Eve Engineering
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 18:00:00 -
[83] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:Theodore Knox wrote:
When I want to switch back and forth between them, that's a lot of off-lining and on-lining to do, unless I sink more isk into pos costs and get me a second large tower - destroying my margins further. And then my head starts to hurt, because I'm trying to work out, how many jobs at 25% lpwer install cost am I going to need to run to break even on the pos fuel costs.
Have you any idea how cluttered my tower is going to be? I make it 63 assembly arrays alone... This is a profoundly messy game mechanic.
No one is forcing you to take advantage of this mechanic. Especially since this mechanic isn't meant to be for "small scale" manufacturers; it's meant to somewhat preserve the current balance for large-scale manufacturers. If you don't already have multiple POSes up, you are not going to be particularly affected by the install cost changes.
"No one" except the inexorable tug of market forces. 
I'm not too bothered by small players getting squeezed out the market, though. This is just another example of the shoddy POS code forcing, frankly, poor game play options.
E.g. Could we get the option to online / offline multiple assembly arrays, instead of one at a time? That won't affect combat mechanics, but it will save a lot of needless RSI-inducing mouse clicks.
|

Theodore Knox
Technologies Unlimited Superior Eve Engineering
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 18:03:00 -
[84] - Quote
Letto Atreides wrote:Stacking Multiple Arrays in the POS is going to be such a clickfest.
Example: if i want max boost for research that's 13 labs. 1. 13 times to anchor 2. 13 times to online/offline if i want to change to other types of arrays 3. 13x7 (corp hanger divisions) = 91 divisions, which are unsearchable from assets tab, where my that bpc copy that was just delivered may be hiding, etc etc
It would be much better if we could just anchor one array and then upgrade it using some mix of isk and materials like we do with POCOs or in PI command centers. It could still take up the same power/cpu as 13 individual arrays but it wouldn't be a management nightmare.
+1
See my previous post.
I understand the mechanics of why up to 50 modules need to be used to get max bonus (forcing extreme specialisation) but can CCP at least admit this is a temporary mechanic, as POS code is due to get a huge overhaul soon, or in the mid-term future.
Introducing a click-fest when you've just taken one away in industry is not a net win. |

Theodore Knox
Technologies Unlimited Superior Eve Engineering
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 18:10:00 -
[85] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Why does it cost to build things at a POS? I built the POS, I'm paying for fuel for it, why am I getting charged again to manufacture things?
There needs to be an ISK sink in every game activity, to spread the sinking of ISK evenly. Wouldn't want one category of player complaining about how other's get off scot-free, would we?
Or are you asking for a "back story" reason? 
|

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
456
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 18:13:00 -
[86] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Quote:Timed restriction to anchor Control Towers
Newly formed corporations will need to wait 7 days before being able to anchor Starbases. This is to inhibit players from immediately moving Starbase assets to another corporation if under a war declaration. The clever among us have pre-formed alt corporations. All this will do is make it so that alt corporations are formed far ahead of time for this specific purpose of avoiding the timer. Its mildly idiotic to have that restriction with that in mind. All you're doing is being an annoyance. Edit: Also, dickstars. oh gods the dickstars... the clever among you are wasting approximately 200-250m a month per altcorp on an alt wasted in a holding corporation
not sure clever is the word you're looking for there |

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Gentlemen's Agreement
31
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 18:15:00 -
[87] - Quote
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:Ereshgikal wrote:Qoi wrote:Quote:Whole and single items will not be affected by this calculation. This is most relevant for Tech I items required to manufacture Tech II variations. For example, building 10 Paladins will not require 9 Apocalypse if you have a 10% ME.
You just brought extra materials back.  What exactly is a "whole and single" item? (in term of invTypeMaterials and ramTypeRequirements?) I thought you wanted to simplify the material calculations.  My take is that a job consisting of X number of runs will require at least X number of units of each component; but I am not sure. The "whole" part makes me think that if a run requires 2.000000 units (not rounded, but "whole") of stuff then 20 runs need 40 units of stuff regardless of ME, but since that is quite a big difference from 36 units of stuff when running with 10% ME....argh, my head hurts. Clarification from CCP is certainly needed. :) the example given right in the same paragraph is very clear -- for tech II items the tech I component needed will alway match in number to the number of final items. How could "For example, building 10 Paladins will not require 9 Apocalypse if you have a 10% ME." be any less than clear? You will alway need the 10 Apocalypses - one ship won't materialize out of thin air without a base item. A module example: "For example, building 10 Damage Control IIs will not require 9 Damage Control Is if you have a 10% ME."
Yes, the example given is clear. However, the phrase "whole and single" can be interpreted several ways. One way is that only fractional parts of a certain material will be affected by scaling the number of runs. For example, one run uses 2 units of Toiletpaper, with 10% ME bonus this becomes 1.8 units of Toiletpaper, rounded up to closest integer (2). Working with 10 runs this becomes 18 units of Toiletpaper. This is what we expect.
A second way to interpret this is that there are materials/components (beyond T1 version in T2 BPC) that behave like the old extra materials. If these materials/components behave like this when existing as >1 unit per run then it is like the old extra materials. Also, it is worth pointing out if it is only the T1 version component in a T2 blueprint that behaves like this; or if there are other materials.
Will 1 morphite as input for 1 Blargh turn into 9 or 10 units of morphite when build 10 units of Blargh? |
|

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
12061
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 18:21:00 -
[88] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Chribba wrote:Arrgh dem starbases! ... Veldqual, you shall never compress again  Structure cost scaling - I will have to pay tax at my own starbase? (Haven't followed the discussion on this) /c You have to pay the installation (or build) cost where ever you install jobs. There's an additional 10% tax on top of that for NPC stations. So, not only will I put out a lot of ISK building a POS with modules, I'm getting taxed on my own production in my own POS (eg tax that is paid to SCC or something)? That sounds stupid...
|
|

Anders Madeveda
Sturmgrenadier Inc
43
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 18:24:00 -
[89] - Quote
Congratulations CCP, in your quest to REDUCE the amount of clicks required by Industrialists in the game, you have created a Golem of clicks in the form of stacking arrays for discounts. Just when I thought you were on the right track you pull defeat from the jaws of victory. |

Meizu Kho
Kho Incorporated
94
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 18:28:00 -
[90] - Quote
concerning the online/offline workarounds for the build cost bonus i would like to remind CCP off what they once told us:
no matter how boring, tedious or time consuming an activity is, if it's the most efficient/safest way of doing it, the players will do it.
If you allow people to take advantage of a 26% build cost advantage without having to risk 13 arrays of the same type because they can offline and unancher then during the job they will do it. they will get freighters with 12 arrays ready and do it every job.
I don't mind the bonus but i do if you can dodge the risk. |
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |