armor hacs?

Just to reiterate on what I said in earlier blogs; in principle I support this change and am glad you're making the sums easier for POS operators (although there is an extra step now with fuel block production).

Please consider iterating/overhauling POS VERY SOON though, especially by breaking up their functions into other structures, with differing fuel requirements. POS should not be the swiss army knife structure they currently are, IMHO and I'd like to see you have a range of structure with differing attributes for the differing functions (such as moon mining, reacting, T3 production, Labs, Capital production etc etc etc).

Cheers.

While for face value this update to POS's looks great, but when you dig down a bit, I do hope you aren't pulling what the NGE did to SWG. Please don't dumb to game down to drawn more players. Companies have tried that, and failed miserably.

It seems CCP takes the easy way out of some issues, such as the ECM Exploit you had with Magnatar systems in WH space. When will this issue be resolved. Instead of fixing the issue, you simply removed the advantage to the system altogether.

What about faction towers? You had said their drop rate was far too frequent, rather than fixing that up front, you simply remove them from dropping at all. When will they be reintroduced into the game?

When will you give CEO's and POS managers better control over who can access what? If I give someone access to High Slot 1, they can access High Slot 1 on every CHA within the pos. The only way to change this, is to require Config Starbase equipment or fuel manager. But even then, you can only divide up the access so far.

When will we have the ability to divide up the SMA like we do the CHA, to prevent theft among the corp members.

When will we have better logs on who is doing what within the POS, to allow us to catch thieves in the act?

When the additional POS upgrades come along I hope they are spectacular so we finally get more for our isk than a big pi+¦ata in space to attract Capital/BS & Logi blobs

Agree with this point completely!

As far as the rest of it goes, I Like! these changes. It does make it easier for my hauling monkeys to just "stuff as many gallente blocks into a Gallente/Serpentis tower as possible."

As far as the whining about hauling ice, why are you hauling ice? I haul compressed! ice! That is, if i don't mine it in system or next door. There's this wonderful new ship called the "Rorqual", might want to check it out...

The original blog said the block BPOS were going to be in Thukker Mix stations. Does that include their highsec/lowsec stations, or will it only be in 0.0 stations?

And WHY would Thukker bother making fuel blocks for other races ... ok maybe they would still help Gallente but surely they would delay and avoid making similar product for Enemy races just to get their people a technological advantage

While for face value this update to POS's looks great, but when you dig down a bit, I do hope you aren't pulling what the NGE did to SWG. Please don't dumb to game down to drawn more players. Companies have tried that, and failed miserably.

Wiki page is up with new changes and a list of prices and where to get them.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/CustomsOffice

Yeah for mining the ice in Lo sec or Null sec (not WH) then Rorqual is great (we can make em so more business for us!!) and that would likely be feeding POSs in Lo and Null sec.

Doesn't work so well in a WH and in Empire! Many R&D corps would mine or buy close by and haul once to POS.

In General I like the block idea IF there is a benefit to offset the extra work in :

*Less Hauling

*Lower or no change in cost

This "upgrade" provides generally an increase in cost and more hauling!

Many ppl here are engaging mouths b4 brains and saying "Oh the fuels blocks are less hauling" tho they don't come out of thin air and if they THINK about the production cycle and costs involved they may realise it's gonna cost them more in isk and hauling somewhere in that process. They either get to haul less and pay more or pay less and haul more.

The HW/LO portion should have been set at a lower amount than the maximum possible to be consumed at present as I'm sure that a very large number of POSs don't have CPU and PG running 24/7 maxed out. For many this will represent a haul more and pay more scenario. CCP should be able to run the numbers or maybe they have and just decided inflation is good.
Maybe they should be politicians!!

I think the portion should have been more like 100/100 to make it more balanced and easier to calculate (4 Empire ice blocks for the LO and 2 for the HW). That way there would still be an increase in Ice Product business and also less of a cost increase for POS owners.

Especially as this is closely following the PI changes with increases in costs ... double tax in Hi sec and more than tripple in lo sec on the Interbus PCOC's (17% rate on SISI currently)


PS - Tip for posters ... COPY ya post b4 ya PREVIEW lol

For all panicing high-sec bear-POS owners

Please quit panicking...please. your costs are going to go DOWN. here is a breakdown currently on standard minmatar towers (most relevant to me - racial iso has no bearing in this argument)

BTW - this assumes 100% CPU and 10% PG usage (for all of you "efficient" POS owners)

Large Tower - Current Cost/30 days = 347mil ISK. New Cost = 363m ISK (equal at 50%PG usage)
Medium Tower - current = 202mil ISK. New = 182mil ISK
Small Tower - current = 129mil ISK. New = 91mil ISK

PS - if you aren't using all the PG and CPU you possibly can, then you aren't being efficient. the cost of all the other materials dwarfs the cost of LO/HW on all tower sizes and you should be ashamed that you weren't putting those other mats to good use by employing the maximum possible heavy water and liquid ozone usage. Also - small and medium towers are getting a cost reduction even at 0% usage of PG AND CPU

PPS - for the m3 people calling for reduced size to represent roughly 80% PG and CPU usage - they already did that.

228.5m3/hr at 100%
204.5m3/hr at 80%

Whoa. What an excellent idea. An audit trail of who has removed what, and from what CHA's. Assinging a CHA to one member, or a particilaur group of members, so that not everyone who has access to ANY CHA can steal my shinies from it. Further, wouldn't it be nice to do the same thing with SMA's so that only 1-2 (or more, on your tastes) can steal the corp freighter, instead of anyone? And not just at POS's. The audit trail for Corp Hangars in stations would be nice too.

PPS - for the m3 people calling for reduced size to represent roughly 80% PG and CPU usage - they already did that.

228.5m3/hr at 100%
204.5m3/hr at 80%

Size of blocks are to big still, and iots no change to houling amaount wath wie ned to to do, total size need to be for large tower so that its posible bring it with one houler not 10 haulers total m3 need to be 25k m3 per 30 days. curently it is like more than 100k m3 for 30 days calculate your self.

40 per hour 5m3 per block, hour usage is 200m3
per day that is 200 x 24 = 4800 per day
per week 4800x7= 33600
per month 33600x4=134400m3

i wuld lowe that that decreased 10 times one block need to be 0,5 m3 not 5m3 that wil inpact our POS fueler live not make it misireble how it is now.

and decrerase a fuel bay size to on this mader thati ts posible to trow in it 14000 for large tower.

Ader ways that make no change atall ok lees brain ting but the same houling amount.

Fuel block BPOs still not seeded on Singularity. Definitely not showing up at Thukker Mix factories (not even the Minmatar Fuel Block BPO).

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/npc/Thukker_Mix/stations

(Research time for ME/PE research is 3h 20m as a base, which looks correct. Same ME time as the various Ammo BPOs such as EMP L. Base waste factor on the fuel block BPOs is 5% with a 300 max runs per BPC.)

Several posts continue to mention doing ME research on the Fuel Block BPO. ME research does NOT reduce the amounts needed of planetary interaction derived materials on any BPOs. I presume it will reduce the amount of ice products required though.

..

To address most of the rest of the discussion, we're not reducing the volume on fuel blocks at this time. Sorry.

Thx for your reply.

i like the bold part...

you obviously did not read my post

You obviously didn't read mine !

And yeah I am talking Large R&D POS
And I also have had experience with Mediums and Lo sec Large and WH Large (why even risk putting up anything other here !?)

Hi sec we only really use HW for Labs so LO use is pretty minimal 50 to 60 p hr
Others vary depending on the climate and objective of the week pretty much.

And this is kinda like deciding to tax everyone at the highest rate cause we feel like a change ... it that happened then you bet ppl would protest and it would get nasty !

Sure it's not real $$ tho as per my calcs we have faced 3 fold increases already in fuel costs with CCP's cool new FeaturesGäó it's more time and effort that needs to be put into chores that would rather go on fun stuff that they to encourage us into.
And I'm sure it won't just be us passing on the increased costs so I'm just thinking along the chain to the PVPers who already moan about how much boring stuff they have to do to afford the cool ships that are just going up and up in price.

Am I blind, or has there been no CCP response in this thread to the loss of sovereignty bonuses? And if there hasn't been, could we please get one?

To address most of the rest of the discussion, we're not reducing the volume on fuel blocks at this time. Sorry.

- This change is not intended to address volume issues in logistics, it's intended to address specific inventory management/manipulation headaches in the current system.

- I appreciate that this changes the status quo for wormhole towers, but running long-term towers in wormholes has never been a "supported feature", in the sense that we haven't explicitly designed for it in either positive or negative ways. The existence of long-term occupation of WH systems by players is an emergent behavior of the system, that we very much applaud, but don't have an explicit design policy for. Until we sit down and decide how to properly "balance" this aspect of gameplay, we're generally tending towards not explicitly designing with wormhole towers in mind, and assuming that the player ingenuity that got these towers up and running in the first place will deal with any minor curveballs we throw at it. Insofaras we have even a proto-policy about settled wormholes, I'd say "it's not supposed to be easy" is near the top of the non-list

Insofaras we have even a proto-policy about settled wormholes, I'd say "it's not supposed to be easy" is near the top of the non-list

but meh... wh dwellers are made of more resilient stuff i guess