|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1971
   |
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:29:42 -
[1] - Quote
Manufacturing in a POS is currently an absolute crap shoot. You have to have so many different arrays and to follow market shifts you need a range of products so it gets crazy.
Compare to manufacturing in an outpost or station. You can do everything. There isn't any differentiation on 'what' you can build or how many lines to a particular product.
Assembly arrays should follow that principle. Not the current POS principle. If you want to encourage people to use them micromanagement simply to be able to build something is bad. So an assembly array should let you build anything right away. Services should enhance that in particular non essential ways.
So ME bonuses are bad. As they become a 'we have to use that ME bonus to compete on the market' issue.
Services should be things surrounding industry but not directly boosting it. Contract delivery services that allow people with contracts from a corp member to dock to deliver a contract, but not otherwise. Adding some research or admin ability to your array so you can use just one structure, time efficiency so you can do more bulk in the same time so better per hour profit (but not per item) etc.
Research should be the same thing, the base structure should allow everything, and a service should not give a per unit cost benefit. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1977
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 21:29:20 -
[2] - Quote
Gfy Trextron wrote:So for a guy or small group of guys to compete, you are taking away the ability to have 1 structure that can copy, print, invent, reprocess, and build with the proper mods at an equal efficiency to everyone else (barring 0.0 advantages) and now requiring them to have 3 structures to operate at equal efficiency.
You keep saying that the structures can be adapted like a ship, do some things well and others ok. This may seem fair to you in some way, but it is not when you have to rely on a large infrastructure to operate efficiently. This only forces people to join large entities with numerous resources.
This potentially goes beyond risk vs reward to unbalanced cost of production.
Note several important things.
The small group or guy probably only needs M structures. The large group will also need 3 structures but will need L or XL structures. Thus much lower capital investment. This assumes that the larger structures are simply larger and not better also.
Fuel use will only apply when doing things. This means the small guy will have much lower operating costs than he currently does as he won't be burning isk during fallow times.
Adaptable structures with fittings mean vastly less micromanagement, one central storage for example. Rather than driving yourself crazy moving around things and onlining & offlining things and whoops, the BPO and the resources are in different spots etc.
Might there still be issues, totally, but lets wait for the actual numbers to come out before we cry about the sky falling (Especially since the unbalanced cost of production actually happened with the last industry update already) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1990
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 23:09:17 -
[3] - Quote
Webster Carr wrote:
What if, in addition to all of the specialized types there was added a generalized structure with lesser (or no) bonuses to all roles. It could never equal the raw output of what the specialized structures could do, but it could fit and do all or most of the activities. In addition: when the transition came all of the existing POS structures could simply be transformed into the new type of general structure with similar mods in place.
Web
If you watch the whole stream of Fanfest, they actually said that the service modules would/should be cross fittable.
So you can fit a research service module into an assembly array, it just won't get the role bonus of the structure. Just like you can fit lasers onto a Rokh. But it gets no bonus to them.
So we don't need a generic structure, because assuming that's accurate, and the service slots aren't overly specific (Looking at you assembly arrays where you need 20 or 30 of them to produce everything) then you can have a generic structure based on how you fit it. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1991
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:28:47 -
[4] - Quote
Data cores totally should be produced. They are just data stores. You don't need to research new theories 50000 times to produce exactly the same T2 item every time. Once you have done it once, that's it. Then it's just using the knowledge.
What someone posted earlier about datacores being cybernetic libraries that burn out after use sounds the best lore direction to go with them.
So yes, lets keep the 'passive' ability (Of a structure at risk in space) to make datacores, because it actually makes sense.
And lets not make it a mini game of 'hunt the datacore' because that just sounds & feels silly. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1991
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sure, the 'invention' might not work, but the datacore isn't the act on inventing, it's just the library you use for reference while 'inventing'. |
|
|
| |
|